J Is for Just imagine over 100 million people becoming small farmers of 20 acre farm sites in the Sahara desert over the next 2 generation's

        Plus, all of the necessary people needed to support them! "Life cycle of a planet by Dan Kadavy" is a short 12-page read that while not particularly well written, explains in detail how planet's, everyone in the universe will all face the same crisis that our own planet is now facing, the slow extinction of whatever type of life that has found a way to succeed, on any planet that had the ability to support life in the first place.              What those limiting factors are, vary and I would be hard-pressed to think too far out of the known box on these reasons. Understanding our own solar system has not yet been accomplished, yet any understanding of systems hundreds and millions of light-years away would seem impossible at this time. If it ends up that our own solar system is much like what others systems are, then this would narrow down what types of life have the best chance of evolving in any or at least most other systems. Should we think that life on this planet is unique or unconventional, from what may exist on other worlds, on more likely much the same as that which may exist on other planets?                                                                                                        Perpetual Motion, can that exist on a planetary scale? I have always said no, but what if I am wrong about that, what mechanism would have to be on the planet to allow for perpetual motion to happen. On this planet where the sequestration of carbon seems to be one of the main reasons to prove that perpetual motion can not exist, there would need to be a way for the carbon to be recycled back into the atmosphere, the only way that I would see that happening is some organism would need to be in the cells of every carbon-based life that upon death, would become active quicky to break down the chemical bonds into a gases form releasing back into the environment so that little to nothing would ever be removed from life being able to reuse "all" of the material again, The proof of this would be no great amounts of fossil fuels or the development of any great amounts of sequestrated carbon as in limestone or marble on the planet. But how would that affect the adaption of life or evolution if the atmospheric gases always stayed the same, so the need to adapt to non-changing conditions did not exist? Perhaps a slowly changing output of energy from the sun would be enough to still require some type of adaption to occur, just not as quickly as the planet does now? Something to think about, perhaps iron, or calcium, would become the leading factor in evolution, instead. Dan danielkadavy212@gmail.com   Thank you.