> On Dec 27, 2007 12:33 PM, Steve Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Does it not seem possible (even likely if we look closely) that the >> ills of >> this planet today are very likely positively correlated with energy >> consumption? > > Maybe, but correlation does not always mean causation.
Nope, it doesn't. But correlation might be more important than causation in this situation. I am not suggesting that energy consumption *itself* is questionable, but rather the never-ending pursuit of more/faster/cheaper and the single-variable optimization we are so good at. The pursuit of "free energy" might just be the epitomy of this. > I think the big > problems have more to do with energy "collection" or "conversion" > rather than consumption. When we reduced our automobile emissions to being nearly "pure" C02 and H20 we were pretty proud of ourselves. Until we woke up one day and discovered that while C02 is quite "natural", the volumes we are releasing into the atmosphere might be the greatest problem the planet and humankind have faced yet (or not). > That is, the environmental and human costs > of mining coal and drilling oil; the by products of burning coal and > oil, really, the entire life-cycle of fossil fuels. Not to mention > mining, processing, consuming and disposing of fuels for nuclear > fission. Absolutely, these are all the "evils we know". Some (those who gain more than others from a given "known evil") will argue that this or that extraction or waste product is "not so bad", but I think we all pretty much agree that the existing sources of "energy" are various lessers and greaters of evil. > ZPE promises to take away all that nastiness, all while > failing to increase the entropy of the universe. Wouldn't that be > neat? Yes, it would be very neat. But it also might be a red herring and it might also be "the evil we don't know". I'm a little too steeped in classical statistical physics to easily imagine we are going to find/create/harness a "limitless source of free energy which does not require an increase of entropy to exploit". I'm "just saying" that instead of forever chasing the carrot of cheaper/cleaner/etceteraier "energy" we might contemplate how we use that energy. Stephen J. Gould said in an interview about a year before he died that the *one thing* we could do to stop the destruction of species was to *stop traveling*. He pointed out that most of the species destruction on the planet came from the constant stirring of pests, predators, bacteria, viruses, etc. we have been doing at increasing rates since the beginning of the age of exploration. Has anyone noticed (or asked Al Gore) why we lifted the 55 speed limit? Issues of efficiency aside... I *hated* it, but I also noticed that lifting it boosted our economy wonderfully by allowing OTR truck drivers to drive further in one day... moving more product more miles to more markets. Sounds great for everyone! The truck drivers make more money, they buy new trucks, the fuel companies make more money, the federal coffers overflow with tax money, the product suppliers move more product, the consumers have more choice at lower prices. And how does *that* fit with global climate change? Has anyone asked Al? Has he volunteered anything? Just a thought. I'm not a luddite, but I do question whether "levers" are as "neat" as we like to think. Most of us probably broke the thing we were moving or the fulcrum (or the lever) the first (few?) time(s) we used a lever. Some of us may still be breaking things with levers... "free energy" might just be a bigger lever? - STeve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
