You've got to remember that we are not just talking about the Earth here though. We're talking about the Whole, which is essentially the Universe understood as an organic unity of some sort. I always doubt our ability to throw out numbers like this for certain, but for sake of discussions scientists claim that there are anywhere from 100–400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Though we don't know exactly why or how there is life here at all, it would be quite strange if we were the only planet with life, especially in Pierce's version of the Nature that is constantly striving and striving to reach a state of self-realization. If even 0.1% of these stars had life on them, that would be some 40,000,000 (forty million) planets with life of some kind on them, and if we say that 0.1% of those had complex life like our planet, that would be some 40,000 planets with complex Earth-like life. That's a lot. Not to mention that we're not just looking at the Milky Way, we're looking at the entire Universe, with trillions and trillions of stars. Of course though I'm just pulling these percentages out of my ass, but I'm operating under the assumption that life on other planets, assuming it exists, is very rare. But even under the rarest possible conditions we still get tens of thousands of planets with complex life, not to mention millions with simpler forms of life. It's understandable if a single planet like Earth degenerates into a global favela, this would be expected under Pierce's vision, as it is a universe in which there is lots of trial and error, but for trillions of planets, of which billions could possibly have life, we are led to wonder why no one can break these filters. Surely they don't all fall into the same pitfalls we have. There seems to be nothing necessary in how this world has ended up.
In my post I assumed a universe past eternal because otherwise I thought that it might lead to more questions than would otherwise be answered, mainly the coming into being of this particular universe. There are scientists today who make claims like this:
<The picture of quantum tunneling from nothing has none of these problems. The universe is tiny right after tunneling, but it is filled up with a false vacuum and immediately starts to inflate. In a fraction of a second, it blows up to a gigantic size.
<Prior to tunneling, no space or time exists, so the question of what happened before is meaningless. Nothing - a state with no matter, no space, and no time - appears to be the only satisfactory starting point for the creation.
Of course what the author of this excerpt, Alexander Vilenkin, means by 'nothing' is some sort of inexplicably existing quantum vacuum, which then somehow 'fluctuates' or 'tunnels' and inflates into a new universe, leading to the beginning of time, space, etc. He also assumes pre-existing laws of physics. I think this shit is bonkers, personally, and that science probably doesn't work as well as one may think when it comes to analyzing the origin
of the system being studied (the natural world), but but sake of discussion, I'm not sure how Cosmotheism would incorporate such a thing. We seem to have some sort of quantum vacuum outside of time, which randomly spawns off universes. What would such a thing even be? To me, some of this wording seems like a cope to avoid the idea of God, and instead they just plop the word 'quantum vacuum' in the blank space. But then the idea of a personal God in Cosmotheism kind of undermines Pierce's entire philosophy, unless we have a creative God who makes infinite universes, endowing each of them with immense creative potential to grow, develop, and create and to show his handiwork. It would undermine the pantheism of Pierce's philosophy, but I think it would make more sense that what we have now. This said, I would have some issues even with that for a few other reasons, but I'm already rambling here.