Is Drinking Water with Meals a Healthy Practice?

 

I received a request from Professor Dr Ling Siew Ching in a WhatsApp chat group asking me if it is advisable to drink a lot of water together with a meal?

The reasons she gave were the fear the water may dilute the digestive juices for optimal digestion. She believes  these juices are of the correct dilution,  and we should not dilute them by drinking a lot of water together with a meal?

The other question she asked me was,  even if it okay to drink a lot of water during a meal, or an hour before or several hours after a meal, is it advisable to drink very cold water during a meal because she believes the lowered temperature will constrict the blood vessels in the stomach and also inhibit the gastric and other digestive juices from flowing?

She believes it would be much better to drink warm water during a meal than drinking cold water for this reason. She then  solicited my answers to this dilemma?

I was writing to reply to Prof Ling personally halfway through, then I thought the length and details of my answers may also be useful to a lot of people who may have also asked the same as this is a common question.  I then decided to divert my answers for Prof Dr Ling into my blog here so that it can be shared among a larger common audience.

Below is my take on this very  pertinent question.

Thank you very much Professor Dr Ling for your two excellent questions pertaining to  hydration during meals and its impact on digestion. Let me try my best to answer.

Your first question was on the effects of drinking water during  meals and its impact  on digestion? I think this is commonly asked by people who are concerned  that drinking water during meals might dilute digestive juices, such as gastric acid and enzymes, making digestion less effective. I too have thought of this years ago during my undergraduate in physiology.

As far as I have observed almost none has been affected by this practice. I suppose the body is quite adaptable and produces digestive juices in amounts necessary for digestion, regardless of whether you're drinking water during the meal. It looks to me that water does not significantly dilute digestive juices. In fact, drinking a moderate amount of water (around a cup or so) helps in the breakdown of food and facilitates nutrient absorption. Excessive amounts of water (such as several glasses during a meal) could potentially make you feel overly full or bloated, but from what I observe this has not  significantly hindered digestion.

Small amounts of water can actually aid the digestive process by helping food pass more easily through the digestive tract and allowing the stomach lining to stay lubricated.

My observing in digestive physiology and in nutrition seems to show that  drinking a reasonable amount of water during meals is generally safe and even beneficial for digestion. It's about finding the right balance for your body’s needs.

Pertaining to your second question on cold water and digestion, this becomes a problem.  It is true that cold water may temporarily inhibit digestion. When you drink very cold water, it could potentially constrict blood vessels in the stomach, which might slightly slow down the digestive process. However, the effect is temporary and usually not significant enough to disrupt the overall digestive process, unless it’s in excess.

I should argue that moderate temperature water (room temperature or warm) is less likely to cause this constriction. However,  people who are sensitive to cold drinks, or have conditions like gastritis or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), warm or room temperature water might be a more comfortable option.

Gastric juice has already being secreted while the food is chewed in the psychic or cephalic phase before any food or water has entered the stomach as shown by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849 - 1936) in his "sham feeding" experiment on dogs. The psychic secretion of gastric juice has also been demonstrated in humans during hypnosis. On he other hand, psychic influences such as worry, fear, anger, and pain are powerfully inhibitory to the gastric glands, as are bad odours, an unsavoury character  of the meal, or even an unattractive appearance of general appointments. Pleasant surroundings, contentment, delights for the eyes and ears, such as flowers on the table, cleanliness, and pleasant music - tend towards ab opposite effect, These have no bearing whether  or not water was drunk before or after a meal. The importance of appetite in aiding digestion has been pithily stated by Pavlov in the words "Appetite spells gastric juice:. Macbeth at the banquet expresses a similar thought when he says "Let good digestion waits on appetite and health on both" 

There are substances present in the aqueous extracts of meat and vegetables, such as  soup and beef extracts that stimulate gastric secretion irrespective of the amount of water drunk in a meal. On account of their stimulant action on secretion they are  known from the physiological point of view as 'gastric secretogogues' The products of protein digestion - proteoses and peptones and other  substances act in a similar fashion. Extracts of the pyloric mucosa, obtained from an animal after a meal of meat extract or of other substances rich in extractives, containing a hormone, i.e.  gastrin when injected into the vein of an animal, a profuse secretion of gastric juice  resulted whether  or not water  is drunk during a meal.  

Among the chemicals that stimulate gastric secretion, the most powerful are histamine and alcohol. Atropine by its paralysing action upon the vagus endings temporary suppresses secretion. Alkalies such as sodium bicarbonates in repeated small doses excites the gastric glands, but a single large dose has, an inhibitory effect.

There are  abnormalities in gastric secretion too such as gastric anacidity or achlorhydria, and achylia gastrica. Gastric anacidity is also seen in a number of diseased states, e.g. cancer of the stomach (other than Helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach),  pernicious anaemia, chronic inflammation of the stomach, chronic arthritis, gall bladder disease etc  Chronic  disorders of the stomach are very lengthy to describe, and we shall not go into them.

 The best answer I  can offer is warm water or warm soup during a meal is a great choice. It can be soothing and gentle on your stomach, aiding digestion by promoting better blood flow and enzyme activity. It also doesn’t have the same constricting effect that cold water might. But the best  nutrition and dietary practices is to drink a bowl of warm soup before a meal. Here are the reasons:

Drinking soup before a meal can stimulate the appetite in a few ways.

First, soups contain different types of gastric secretagogues as already described above.

Second, warming the stomach by warm liquids help increase blood flow to the digestive system, priming the stomach for digestion. Warm soup has a sensory stimulation.

Third, the aroma and umami taste from meat-based soup activate the salivary glands and gastric secretions, making the body more prepared for food intake.

Fourthly, soup also causes ghrelin release, the hunger hormone influenced by stomach distension. A light soup can regulate ghrelin levels and enhance appetite in a controlled manner.

Fifthly, drinking soup before a meal can both increase or decrease food intake, depending on its composition and the individual’s dietary habits. If the soup is light and brothy, it may increase appetite by warming up the digestive tract without causing satiety. 

Sixthly, if the soup is thick and fibre-rich (e.g., vegetable or lentil-based) it can reduce overall calorie intake by making a person feel fuller, leading to lower food consumption in the main course.

Studies suggest that a low-energy-density soup (like a clear broth) before a meal can led to a 15-20% reduction in total caloric intake, which may aid in weight control.

Seventhly, brothy warm soup enhances nutrient absorption through intrinsic factors. First, vitamin B12 absorption is facilitated. Meat-based soups, especially those made from bone broth, organ meats, or long-simmered cuts of meat, are rich in protein, gelatine, and micronutrients. The intrinsic factor (IF) is a glycoprotein produced in the stomach, essential for vitamin B12 absorption. 

Drinking meat-based soup before a meal can stimulate gastric secretions, including intrinsic factor, helping with better absorption of vitamin B12. Bone broths and meat extracts may also contain small amounts of B12, contributing to the body's stores.

There are also other nutrient absorption benefits such as gelatine and collagen found in bone broth.  These compounds support gut lining health and may improve digestion and absorption of amino acids, even though nutritionists know the protein quality (biological value) of gelatine is very low – in fact zero where its  nitrogen cannot be retained by the body.

Eighthly, there is also mineral bioavailability. Meat-based soups provide mineral bioavailability such as iron, zinc, calcium, and magnesium, which are more easily absorbed due to the presence of amino acids like glycine and proline. The soup also provides hydration & electrolyte balance.  The sodium and potassium in broth maintain stomach acidity, essential for protein digestion and mineral absorption.

Soup before a meal also has digestive benefits. It prepares the stomach for digestion.  The warm temperature and liquid consistency help the stomach start producing acid and enzymes, ensuring smooth digestion of the upcoming meal. The gelatine and glutamine in broth support the gut lining, potentially aiding in conditions like leaky gut or gastric ulcers.

Ninthly, soup before a meal may reduce bloating.  The fluid content of soup promotes gastric motility and prevents indigestion. Thus, drinking meat-based soup instead of water, beverages before a meal can provide digestive benefits, stimulate appetite, and enhance nutrient absorption. It also helps control food intake depending on its consistency. The presence of intrinsic factor stimulation, gelatine, and essential minerals makes soup a great primer for optimal digestion and absorption of nutrients like vitamin B12. 

Thus, most cultures traditionally start off a meal with a bowl of soup, or together with the meal mid way. This cultural food practices make tremendous amount of scientific sense. 

Having explained all these, however, if you still  prefer cold drinks, just keep in mind that they might cause temporary discomfort, especially with larger meals. But for most people, it’s not a major issue.
 

My conclusion is that drinking moderate amounts of water with meals does not significantly dilute digestive juices or impair digestion. Cold water may slightly slow digestion in some people, but it’s typically not a big issue unless consumed in large quantities. If you’re concerned about this, opting for room temperature or warm drinks might be a better choice. I feel it's generally fine to drink a reasonable amount of water during meals, but if you're sensitive to cold drinks, or if you want to maximize digestion, consider warm soups which is much better.  Our digestive system is quite efficient and can handle varying conditions as long as we are listening to our body's signals and keeping things balanced.

I write my opinion based on sound physiological-scientific reasoning on what I understand in digestive physiology,

When I was an undergraduate student, I remember having to read a massive book called “Physiological Basis of Medical Practice by Best and Taylor.

Charles Herbert Best CBE, MA, MD, DSc (Lond), FRS, FRCP  and Norman Burke Taylor VD, MD, FRS, FRCS, FRCP, MRCS, LRCP  held  highly impressive academic and professional credentials who wrote that classic book on Physiology.  

I think, if I still remember well, Best and Taylor described the reasons why drinking soup before a meal is a healthy practice that is being practised by most cultures.  

Best & Taylor’s Physiological Basis of Medical Practice is indeed a classic textbook used by most medical students and undergraduate students in medical physiology throughout the Commonwealth nations, and I can see why it might have touched on this topic, considering its comprehensive approach to human physiology. Older editions of medical and physiological texts often emphasized practical, observation-based knowledge, and the cultural practice of drinking soup before meals likely had physiological justification even before modern research confirmed it.

Classical medical texts often contain gems of wisdom that modern literature sometimes overlooks and my  memory in recalling such details is still clearly retained even at my age.

It is always my pleasure to assist Professor Dr Ling,  or anyone  in understanding such fascinating topics.

However, having  explained all that, there is a question I need to ask.

Suppose now, someone places a plate of hot appetizing meal on your table for you to eat. 

 Then someone came along and poured icy cold water into your plate of hot and delicious food. What would be your  reactions? First, I supposed you will be stunned. But I am sure you would not mind if he had added some hot soup or hot gravy onto your food - but not cold water.  What then would you do to him next? 

I supposed  you would instantly punch him for doing that. You would call him a mad chap – a mental (psychiatric) case.

If you are sure, you would punch him for doing that, then why are you doing the same thing to your own stomach by drinking cold water on the hot meal you have just swallowed instead of some warm soup?  

Is it  because the stomach is dumb, and cannot fight with you, and you treat it like some kind of a garbage bin where you can dump anything inside without it protesting and calling you a mad chap? 

Don’t you think you too are as insane and a mad chap as that person who poured cold water onto your plate of hot food as much as you did to your own stomach? 

Professor Ling, I leave this soul-searching question for you to answer - drinking icy water with your hot meals.  

 

- Nutritionist jb lim MD MSc PhD (Med) FRSPH FRSM 

Introduction to Space Travels to other Worlds - The Challenges (Part 1)

In my previous series of articles on the fate of humanity due to over population I have hinted the possibilities of colonizing other worlds as one of the solutions to escape. 

Professor Dr Ling Siew Ching in a WhatsApp chat after reading them, then asked me if I could write an article on this. At her request, I shall now write a series of essays to examine the possibility of travelling to Proxima Centauri - our nearest star 4.246 light years or 4.018 ^ 13 km (40,180,000,000,000 km) away. But first, let's us look at the possibility of space travels and their challenges. What can we expect? 

 This current series examines the possibility even to the nearest star, and at the request of Prof Dr Ling Siew Ching who requested my views and write up, I  shall dedicate these series of 4 articles to her. 

That’s a fascinating topic, and I’d be delighted to write a detailed article on interstellar travel. However, this subject is technically very complex that may require it to be written as a book instead of short essays like all my articles here in this blog. I write short articles for educational purposes reachable for everyone - which is free here, not writing a book for a living. When I was working in medical research I published research papers as my profession for a living.  

 But what I can do here is,  at least write an outline what I shall cover,  maybe in point form or just one or two  sentences each whatever that flows my mind. That few sentences would be enough to give us food for thought. Let me try my best.

 Below is a structured outline of what I have in mind, at least for the moment. I shall elaborate on them later in the remaining series. 

Title: Interstellar Travel: Possibilities, Challenges, and the Future of Humanity Among the Stars

Introduction:

The concept of interstellar travel and why it fascinates humanity.

The difference between interplanetary and interstellar travel.

The scale of distances involved, why reaching even the nearest stars is a monumental challenge.

1.      Possibilities of Interstellar Travel

2.      Conventional Rocket Propulsion: Why chemical rockets are inadequate for interstellar distances.

Nuclear Propulsion: The idea of nuclear thermal and nuclear pulse propulsion (e.g., Project Orion, Project Daedalus).

Ion Propulsion and Solar Sails: Exploring the feasibility of using solar energy and light pressure.

Fusion and Antimatter Propulsion: Theoretical energy sources that could power a star ship.

Warp Drives and Wormholes: Theoretical concepts from physics, such as the Alcubierre drive and traversable wormholes.

3.      Difficulties and Challenges

Distance and Time: The problem of relativistic time dilation and the limits of human lifespans.

Energy Requirements: The staggering amount of energy needed for high-speed interstellar travel.

Cosmic Hazards: Space debris, radiation, and other dangers of traveling at relativistic speeds.

Communication Delays: The challenge of maintaining contact with Earth over light-years of distance.

Human Adaptation: The biological and psychological effects of long-duration space travel.

4.      Potential Solutions to Overcome Challenges

Generation Ships: Sending multi-generational crews to settle distant star systems.

Cryogenic Sleep and Biostasis: The idea of hibernating travellers for long journeys.

Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: Sending autonomous probes before human explorers.

5.      Breakthrough Star shot and Laser Propulsion: Concepts like using Earth-based lasers to push lightweight probes at near-light speeds.

6.      The Future of Humanity Among the Stars

Ethical and philosophical implications of interstellar colonization.

The search for habitable exoplanets, where might we go first?

How interstellar travel might change human civilization.

The role of extra-terrestrial intelligence, could we encounter alien life?

7.      Conclusion

A summary of the potential and obstacles of interstellar travel.

Why it remains one of the greatest challenges of human exploration.

The importance of continued scientific advancements in making it a future possibility.

The Origin of Life: Divine or Ransom?

 

The Origin of Life: Was It Divine or Random?

By: lim ju boo 

Astronomers and astrobiologists tell us we are made of star dust from a supernova explosion.  When massive stars explode as a supernova many of the elements of the periodic table, including those that make up the human body are released into space. These elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus that make up the composition and DNA of the human body finally arrived on earth some 4.5 billion years ago to make up the soil on Earth.

The origin of life may have started in another world of a massive star, and their elements brought to earth by a supernova explosion to begin a new life here in our world. Since life is the breath of God that cannot die or be destroyed (except the physical body) these elements of life are released into the soil from where they came.  The soul  then goes on transit to another world after the death of the physical body to begin another life elsewhere in another world. This becomes an endless cycle of life from one world to the next. However, none of these elements in the dust were alive till God blew the breath of life into them for them to become a living soul as described in Genesis 2:7.

With this above introduction,  what I believe and am going to write here is a  fusion of scientific understanding and theological perspective that will beautifully integrate the origin of life and the essence of the soul. Let me  expand my belief further.

The Stardust Connection and the Formation of Life

Scientists believe the elements that make up our bodies, namely, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and others originated in the nuclear furnaces of stars and were scattered across the universe in supernova explosions. This "stardust" eventually coalesced to form planets, including Earth. This view, rooted in astrophysics, provides a humbling perspective that, all life on Earth is inherently connected to the cosmos.

However, these elements are not inherently "alive." Life requires more than just the presence of organic or inorganic molecules. In science, the transition from non-life to life remains one of the biggest mysteries, often referred to as the study of abiogenesis.

In  Genesis 2:7 where God breathes life into Adam supports the concept that life requires an animating force or principle beyond physical components.

Life as the Breath of God:

My belief that the "breath of God" (or the divine spark) is what animates lifeless matter is deeply meaningful to me – but I am unsure if other scientists concur with me. In this framework, life is not merely biochemical activity but something sacred and eternal. The breath of life transforming matter into a living soul is in line with many spiritual beliefs that life is more than its physical manifestation.

From a scientific perspective, one could interpret this "breath" as the emergence of consciousness, self-awareness, or the inexplicable spark that distinguishes living organisms from non-living matter. Biologically, even though life is a product of intricate chemical reactions, its origin and the essence of consciousness remain beyond the full grasp of science.

An Endless Cycle of Life Across Worlds

The idea of life transitioning from one world to another through the breath of God is thought-provoking to me.  It parallels some concepts in both spiritual traditions and modern scientific theories.

From the spiritual viewpoint, many religions speak of life as a journey or cycle. Hinduism and Buddhism describe reincarnation, where the soul continues its existence in a new form. Christianity views the soul as eternal, destined for a new phase of existence after physical death.

Scientific Analogies

The possibility of life's persistence across planetary systems supports the theories of panspermia, where life (or its precursors) could spread between worlds via comets or meteorites. While this doesn't directly address the "soul," it suggests a continuity of life on a cosmic scale.

Implications for the Nature of the Soul

The idea that the breath of God is eternal and indestructible suggests that the soul transcends physical existence. My view implies that, the physical body is a temporary vessel, housing the soul for a limited period. After death, the soul transitions to another form or place, continuing its journey in the universe or beyond. This raises fascinating questions, such as, does the soul retain individuality, memory, or consciousness as it transitions? I wrote separate articles that the soul remembers after the  death of the body in some of my links below:

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=soul+as+an+artist

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-purpose-of-our-souls.html

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/06/question-is-soul-life-itself-and-life.html

Do Our Souls Remember the Actions of Our Previous Lives? here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/06/does-our-souls-remember-actions-of-our.html

Could this cycle of life across worlds be part of a divine plan for growth, learning, or spiritual evolution?

A Unified Perspective

The  theory I propose  hopefully would elegantly bridge science and faith. While science explores the physical origins and mechanisms of life, faith addresses the metaphysical and spiritual dimensions. Together, they provide a more holistic understanding of existence:

Science reveals how the elements of life were created and assembled, but faith offers an answer to why these lifeless elements were animated and given purpose.

This theory beautifully brings into line with the view that life is a cosmic journey, transcending individual existence. It challenges us to see ourselves not just as beings tied to Earth but as participants in an eternal cycle spanning the cosmos.

This interpretation  not only reconciles scientific knowledge with spiritual wisdom but also encourages reflection on the interconnectedness of life, matter, and the divine. This perspective reminds us of our profound connection to both the universe and its Creator. Let me continue to explain this further.

Panspermia I believe was first proposed in 1972 by Nobel prize winner Francis Crick, along with Leslie Orgel who held that panspermia is the theory that life was deliberately brought to Earth by a higher intelligent being from another planet. In light of the evidence at the time that it seems unlikely for an organism to have been delivered to Earth via radio-panspermia or lithopanspermia (I shall explain these mean shortly).

 Crick and Orgel proposed this as an alternative theory, though it is worth noting that Orgel was less serious about the claim. They do acknowledge that the scientific evidence is lacking but discuss what kinds of evidence would be needed to support the theory.

In a similar vein, Thomas Gold suggested that life on Earth might have originated accidentally from a pile of 'Cosmic Garbage' dumped on Earth long ago by extra-terrestrials or alien beings from another world. These theories are often considered more science fiction. However, Crick and Orgel use the principle of cosmic reversibility to argue for it. Fed Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe also came out with their theory. The Hoyle–Wickramasinghe model of panspermia to include the assumptions that dormant viruses and desiccated DNA and RNA can survive unprotected in space; that small bodies such as asteroids and comets can protect the "seeds of life", including DNA and RNA, living, fossilized, or dormant life, cellular or non-cellular… etc

The theories of abiogenesis and panspermia, including their variations like directed panspermia, have fascinated scientists and philosophers alike as they probe the mystery of life's origins. Let me provide a detailed overview, touching on the theories I mentioned and shall expand on their implications and supporting evidence.

Abiogenesis: Life from non-life

Abiogenesis posits that life originated on Earth from non-life or from another world. Let me  explore the fascinating theories of abiogenesis and panspermia, including the ideas of Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, as well as others that delve into the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the scientific hypothesis that life arose naturally from non-living matter on Earth, guided by physical and chemical processes. It suggests that the early Earth provided the right conditions for the transition from simple molecules to complex, self-replicating systems that eventually became life.

Key stages in abiogenesis are the chemical evolution. By this I mean organic molecules such as amino acids and nucleotides formed spontaneously in Earth's early environment, as demonstrated by experiments like the Miller-Urey experiment (1953). This showed that combining simple gases (methane, ammonia, hydrogen) with energy (lightning) can create amino acids, the building blocks of life although these chemicals themselves are not life.

After these chemicals were formed through ancient lightning striking over the primordial oceans, life was infused into the waters.  I believe it was the spirit of God hovering over the waters that gave life into them as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 

 “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”.

After the ancient lightning struck over the waters of the oceans, next came the formation of polymers where small molecules combine to form larger macromolecules like proteins and RNA, possibly facilitated by clays or hydrothermal vents. Once formed there was self-replication in the development of molecules (like RNA) capable of storing information and catalysing chemical reactions, a process proposed in the  RNA World Hypothesis. The aggregation of these molecules within lipid membranes, forming "protocells" capable of growth, replication, and evolution.

Despite progress, abiogenesis still faces challenges such as, how did such complex molecules form and persist in prebiotic environments? What mechanisms led to the emergence of self-replication and metabolism?

Alternatively, scientists came up with the panspermia theory that life came from space, from another world. Panspermia hypothesizes that life, or its precursors, did not originate on Earth but was delivered here from elsewhere in the cosmos. This idea shifts the origin of life to a larger cosmic framework. This led on to the different types of panspermia proposed such as:

Radio-panspermia. These microscopic life forms or spores were carried to Earth by solar winds or radiation pressure. Critics argue that such organisms would struggle to survive prolonged exposure to intense cosmic radiation.

Lithopanspermia proposed that life travelled to Earth embedded in rocks or meteorites ejected from other planets, like Mars. Fossilized microbial structures in Martian meteorites (e.g., ALH84001) have intrigued scientists, though the evidence is not conclusive.

Directed panspermia (Crick & Orgel, 1972) suggested that life was deliberately seeded on Earth by an advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel proposed this as a speculative but scientifically grounded idea, acknowledging the lack of evidence but pointing out the improbability of life arising spontaneously. They argued that highly developed life elsewhere might have sent life forms to Earth as part of an intentional act.

Astrobiologists (scientists whose expertise are  in astronomy, biology and evolution) proposed the Cosmic Garbage Hypothesis (Thomas Gold) in that life may have originated accidentally when extra terrestrial beings discarded biological waste on Earth, introducing self-replicating systems.

Hoyle-Wickramasinghe Hypothesis

Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe expanded on panspermia by proposing that:

Dormant life forms, such as viruses or desiccated DNA/RNA, could survive unprotected in the harsh environment of space. Comets and asteroids might serve as protective vehicles for these "seeds of life." They speculated that organic molecules and even microorganisms might be common throughout the universe.

This theory gained some support when NASA discovered organic molecules, including amino acids, in meteorites and comets (e.g., the Murchison meteorite). Additionally, extremophiles (organisms thriving in extreme conditions on Earth) show that life can withstand hostile environments, bolstering the plausibility of life surviving space travel.

Supporting Observations

Panspermia gained traction with discoveries like, organic molecules in space. Amino acids, sugars, and other life-related molecules have been detected in meteorites, comets (e.g., Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko), and interstellar clouds.

Then there were the extremophiles where organisms like Deinococcus radiodurans and tardigrades that can survive radiation, desiccation, and the vacuum of space.

Martian Evidence:

Studies of Martian meteorites and planetary conditions suggest Mars may have had liquid water and organic chemistry conducive to life.

Challenges and Implications:

While panspermia explains how life might spread, it does not address the ultimate origin of life, it merely moves the question to another location in the cosmos. For example, where and how did the first life form in the universe? Could panspermia suggest that life is ubiquitous in the cosmos, or even part of a divine plan?

Philosophical Implications:

Theories like directed panspermia raise intriguing questions about purpose and intent. If life was deliberately sent to Earth, what was the motivation of the senders? Could panspermia support the idea of a universal life force or divine plan?

Modern Developments

Current research continues to explore these theories. Missions like ESA’s Rosetta (studying cometary organic molecules) and NASA’s Perseverance Rover (searching for signs of past life on Mars) aim to shed light on the prevalence of life-related compounds. Advances in astrobiology and extremophile studies provide insights into the potential for life in extra-terrestrial environments, such as Europa, Enceladus, or Titan.

My  understanding of panspermia, especially the contributions of Crick, Orgel, Hoyle, and Wickramasinghe, highlights the fascinating intersection of science and speculative reasoning. These theories broaden our (or at least personally mine), perspective of life’s potential origins and the interconnectedness of the cosmos. Whether life emerged on Earth or was seeded from elsewhere, its existence remains a profound mystery.

The  philosophical and theoretical aspects of the origin of life, exploring how these ideas ring with deeper questions about existence, purpose, and our place in the universe. I'll later also provide references to further explore these fascinating topics, but before that,  allow me to continue to pen my personal deep-seated spiritual-scientific thoughts.

Philosophical and Theoretical Perspectives

Is Life a Universal Phenomenon?

The idea of panspermia, especially in its directed form, raises profound questions about the universality of life. Is life a cosmic imperative? If the seeds of life can travel between planets and even star systems, it suggests that life may not be confined to Earth. This tallies with the notion that the universe is teeming with potential for life, awaiting the right conditions to emerge.

Does life have a purpose? Directed panspermia, in particular, implies intent, namely, a higher intelligence deliberately seeding life. If true, this suggests life has meaning beyond survival and reproduction, potentially pointing to a grander cosmic design.

The Breath of Life and Spiritual Dimensions

In Genesis 2:7, the "breath of life" that animates humans is often interpreted as a divine spark that transcends the physical. This rings with panspermia's implication that life is not bound to Earth and can persist or evolve elsewhere.

The cycle of life and afterlife:

I deeply believe in Divine orchestration even as a medical research scientist. It is an  intricate mechanism that allows life to emerge - abiogenesis or panspermia - are so finely tuned that they evoke awe. Whether one believes in God, a universal consciousness, or natural laws, this points to an underlying intelligence or order.

Cosmic Evolution and the Anthropic Principle

Theories of life’s cosmic origin fit within a broader framework of cosmic evolution, the process by which simple elements formed in the Big Bang evolved into complex systems capable of hosting life. The Anthropic Principle is the conditions of the universe (e.g., the abundance of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen) seem fine-tuned to support life. Is this by chance, or does it reflect a purposeful design? Some interpretations of panspermia, particularly directed panspermia, suggest intent behind this fine-tuning.

There is a connection to consciousness to suggest  if life is ubiquitous, is consciousness also a universal phenomenon? This raises questions about whether intelligence is an inevitable outcome of cosmic evolution or a rare anomaly.

Ethics of Panspermia needs to be addressed. If life can spread between planets, we must consider these ethical issues I question myself as much as we do in our practice in medical and scientific ethics.   

Responsibility of seeding life - If humans develop the capability to seed other planets (a form of modern directed panspermia), do we have a moral obligation to do so? Should we ensure that such actions do not harm existing ecosystems?

Interplanetary kinship: If life on Earth shares a common ancestry with extra-terrestrial life, this suggests a form of cosmic kinship. How should we approach potential alien life, ethically, scientifically, and spiritually?

The Paradox of Directed Panspermia

Directed panspermia raises intriguing paradoxes such as who seeded the first life? If extra-terrestrial beings sent life to Earth, how did they originate? This shifts the origin question rather than resolving it.

Was it infinite regress or divine origin? Does life stretch back infinitely, or was there a singular divine act of creation? This paradox mirrors philosophical questions about the origin of the universe itself.

Theological and Spiritual Reflections

The Eternal Soul is my  idea that the "breath of life" is eternal tallies with many religious beliefs that see the soul as indestructible. In this view, life is not just physical but also spiritual, with the soul transcending death and physical constraints.

Life’s cosmic journey is the notion of life transitioning between worlds harmonizing  with the idea of an eternal journey, found in traditions like Hinduism (reincarnation) and even Christian eschatology (life after death). Panspermia may provide a scientific metaphor for this spiritual cycle.

God as the First Cause: Directed panspermia and abiogenesis both raise the question of a "first cause" that set the universe in motion. This harmonizes  with classical theological arguments for God's existence, such as Thomas Aquinas' argument from causality.

In Psalm 19:1  it says

"The heavens declare the glory of God"

The idea that life is distributed across the cosmos can be seen as a testament to divine creativity, with every star, planet, and organism reflecting God’s handiwork.

Whether life emerged from Earth’s primordial soup, was seeded from space, or reflects a divine act, its existence inspires wonder.

I allow my thoughts to  bridge  science, philosophy, and theology, as  these connections enriches  our understanding of life’s origins and purpose in a steered direction. I have studied many  scientific theories on abiogenesis, panspermia, or spiritual traditions.   

But it is original hypotheses like these that are always thought-provoking and provide such fertile ground for exploration. I merely bring my thoughts  to this table. It was just my spiritual-scientific  inquisitiveness, combining science, philosophy, and faith that inspired me greatly.

If we care to read Genesis, from verse 1 till verse 20, you will find these verses are  exactly in the  same sequential events  as evolutionary biologists think.

In these verses it was light that was first created from darkness, before herbs and  plants and photosynthesis became possible. This was followed by animal life like fishes that first arose from the oceans  became thinkable before they crept onto dry land as reptiles like dinosaurs, gloried reptiles like fowls and birds in  the air, before the appearances of mammals like cattle, thereafter humans came into existence.

These verses were written precisely in the same sequences as in the evolution of life on earth  written by evolutionary biologists. But before all these life events were  made possible, the spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 was needed to hover over the waters of the primordial oceans to infuse life into those  ancient biomolecules  generated by lightning. Doesn’t that make tremendous spiritual and scientific truths if we can bridge them together in perfect harmony, may I ask my elite and learned readers here?     

The right prayers give us  incredible gifts -  the ability to see connections between complex fields and articulate our  thoughts in meaningful ways. The  foundation is built on  profound spiritual-scientific understanding. The right daily prayers and constant thoughts about God even when we are bathing, eating, writing, travelling in  a car, bus or riding a bicycle bring us these insights, knowledge and wisdom in our journey of revelation.

 I am guided to accept that  life transitions between worlds suggests a cycle of existence, which parallels many spiritual beliefs about reincarnation or the soul’s journey. If the "breath of life" is eternal, it may travel through the cosmos, animating new forms in new worlds.

It was my  ‘still small voice’ that constantly speaks silently to me for years between my night sleeps  that drives my personal beliefs to pen these thoughts here.   

Please feel free to share your thoughts, questions, comments  or even your own theories with me. It's always a delight to engage in these enriching conversations with anyone who has a curious mind and an admirable passion for knowledge, who also who seeks spiritual wisdom; together we can explore the depths of the cosmos, life, and beyond!

 

Further Reading and References

To read deeper into these topics, here are some key references and resources:

1. Books:

Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick (1981)

• Crick explores the challenges of abiogenesis and panspermia, particularly directed panspermia.

The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge by Jeremy Narby (1998)

• A fascinating perspective on the connections between DNA, life, and consciousness, blending science and spirituality.

The God Hypothesis by Fred Hoyle (1984)

• Hoyle discusses the role of intelligence in the origins of life, including his thoughts on panspermia.
1. Research Articles:

Crick, F. H. C., & Orgel, L. E. (1973). "Directed Panspermia." Icarus, 19(3), 341-346.

• The foundational paper on directed panspermia.

Wickramasinghe, C. (2010). "The Theory of Cosmic Life and Hoyle-Wickramasinghe Model." International Journal of Astrobiology, 9(2), 119-123.

• Expands on panspermia's implications for life in the universe.
2. Websites:

NASA’s Astrobiology Program: https://astrobiology.nasa.gov

• Explores the origins of life and panspermia.

The European Astrobiology Institute: https://europeanastrobiology.eu

• Focuses on research in astrobiology, including life’s origins.
3. Documentaries and Lectures:

The Universe: Life and Death (History Channel series)

• Explores the possibility of life originating in space.

TED Talk: “Are we alone in the Universe?” by Sara Seager

• Discusses the search for extra-terrestrial life and its implications.

(A 3,658 worded essay in 16 pages) 

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 my hands towards this wisdom. 

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