Scientists will argue about anything arguable forever, that is part of their job.
Meantime if there is a threat of any kind that might come around, we would probably not agree it is a threat until too late.
The more we examine things on Earth, including what we know and can guess about historical artifacts, and genetics, including ours, the more it is starting to look like we should be recognising there is something going on, a kind of sorting out, between different variations of our species, that even explains our variations, without prejudice, in a way we might finally unite, to form a much stronger species than one divided. We might all have been an accident, that we still survive at all, or it might have been intentional, but we surely are the product of what was higher intelligence, most likely not just one, but quite a few, with even conflicting interests, and the only logical explanation for where they all came from has to be "Out there".
That we don’t see or hear from them much is easily explained by us not knowing how they exist, or how they could have got here.
What they left us with, looks like a few religions, and a few artifacts, not giving much away about the technologies they left with.
So we might feel like we are a kind of experiment, like planting some different seeds in a pot, then leaving it to see what results.
Or an accident, like some organic remnants of tools used to carry out some work, of some kind of farming or another, we somehow survived.
Whichever way it is, a repeat visit by whichever parties were involved could turn out to be a surprise, not only for us, but for them.
We might not be what they expected, and if that turns out to be not to their liking, and they happen to be real bad-asses, like the worst of us, we’d better be tooled up and ready to fend them off.
When we study what are the effects on our planet, from "Good and bad" behaviour, studying things like the effects of solar radiation and solar pressure on our planet, and orbital dynamics, we should realise it is something very finely balanced like a plate spinning on a stick.
It doesn’t take much to break the equilibrium.
Actually we might have already disturbed it in a way that if we don’t undo what has been done already, we are on a course leading away from the sun, much sooner than most folk realise.
Look at the drift of our daily rotation compared with nuclear clocks for example, and we see that a year is now almost 30 seconds longer than it was in 1970.
It makes sense that all planets orbiting our sun, all spin in the same direction, as the directions of our orbits, because all were ejected from the sun, which itself is spinning.
It follows then that any braking of the spinning, by forces removing stored kinetic energy on the planet, will result in a change of trajectory, outwards, away from the sun.
We should realise also it doesn’t take much to break the equilibrium, the fine balance between centrifugal force summed with solar pressure, countered by the gravitational pull of the sun.
There are two ways things can go.
We can continue the practice of treating all energy as capital, requiring that we either keep extracting it from the stored energy capital resources of Earth, or devise an artificial source like the sun (fusion), but which can be controlled on Earth in such a way that it can always be scarcified by those controlling it, to subdue and control all others on Earth, thus the energy of it can still be treated as capital.
With that, we wouldn’t care much that the planet might drift away from the sun, in fact we might be excited by that, recognising that the power of the sun would be the only remaining potential source of energy that would-be adversaries might use, to undermine the ruling authority.
With it gone, all hope would be lost, of free energy ever winning over the power of capital energy, on Earth.
We might then go on to devising ways to use that Earth internal capital energy source, to actually propel our planet to other planets that we might think could be worth visiting, to lay claim to, to restock our always dwindling stocks of capital energy on board Earth, and perhaps even to replicate.
Again logically, an army of Nibirus would be far more powerful than just one.
Conversely, we might plug into the sun now, before anything like fusion, or geo-engineering is developed, removing all value of capital, and all need and funding for things like fusion, except maybe for small spaceships that we might use as scouts, to keep an eye out for things like Nibirus.
It turns out that when we do that, by installing significant sun absorbing surface area on Earth, we would be reducing the solar pressure on Earth, which would have the opposite effect of Geo-engineering. More solar panels results in us lowering the forces trying to throw us out into space, away from the sun.
Further, it turns out that the behaviour of energy collecting infrastructure on Earth, put there by nature (Forestation) or by humanity, actually has a higher energy absorption rate in the mornings when it has been starved all night , than in the evenings when it has been charging all day.
So solar energy collecting surface area acts like a motor, acting in the same direction as natural planetary spin.
It will be interesting to see the effects on nuclear clock timing, after we go solar.
I would love to be alive to see that, but probably won’t be.
I have absolute faith though, that we will unite as a species and go with solar, I don’t know which will come first, probably solar. We probably need to ditch capitalism first to unite, and ditching capitalism requires that we hook up to the sun.
All of this can seem like science fiction, of course it could be.
But which parts should really be doubted?
Is there any harm in an ideology like this?
We do need something for the defence industries of the world to re-focus on, after we get over pointing all the armaments at each other.
Also it will be pretty easy to know friend or foe, if it comes from outside.
If it looks like a planet approaching, we better be ready for a showdown.