hogworth

Gosh I hope this doesn't come off as too negative, but what is the point finding these 'links'?

Science is about trying to explain the world, not looking for random facts.

We learn nothing of substance about coffee, health or anything else from this article. Yet it has the appearance of being scientific, for example, it mentions antioxidants.

It wouldn't be fair to label it pseudoscience however it does share some of the features.

People are starting to learn by now that correlation doesn't imply causation, but they still think it is suggestive of causation, or makes causation more probable, or something like that.

To try to dispel that: the fact that coffee drinking correlates positively with life expectancy is logically consistent with coffee acting to reduce lifespan. More importantly, knowing causes is not very helpful since pretty much everything causes pretty much everything else.

What is useful is solving problems and trying to explain the world. That's what people like Newton, Darwin and Einstein were doing.

FWIW my guess is that drinking coffee causes people to eat less food which might indeed result in greater health, though this doesn't seem like a fruitful line of enquiry.

What will prevent us from removing sufficient matter from the sun to make it safe?

Remember that we have 100s of millions of years in which to develop the required technology.

>by 500,000 years from now on the Earth will have likely been impacted by a meteorite of roughly 1 km in diameter

Nah. Let's be optimistic. Within a few decades we will have developed the ability to deflect all dangerous asteroids.

Also, the idea in the article that we will allow the historically priceless Californian coast to disappear 100,000 centuries from now is preposterous. Our ability to alter geography has increased by orders of magnitude in the last century alone thanks to the development of earth moving machinery.

Ditto permitting the Sun to destroy the solar system, etc.