This is a more articulate response to the
'we should live as fascistoid hippies otherwise
we lose entropy' of Mr Dieoff.
>Could someone examine the following text and tell me
>if the laws of thermodynamics are used correctly.
>I don't think so... I think
>the Earth is not a clesed system.
>thanks, Eva
Your assessment is correct.
>
>
>
>From: "Jay Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>You are out of date Eva. I am not borrowing terms from physics. The laws of
>thermodynamics are now part of the sustainability literature at all levels.
>Here is clip from one a new book I just bought:
>
This poster, and the author of the article below, *are* borrowing terms
from physics. And using them inappropriately.
>THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF GROWTH
>by Douglas Booth; Routledge, 1998
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415169917
>
>[snip]
>
>Economic circular flow and the environment
>
>Anyone who has taken macroeconomics is familiar with circular flow analysis.
>Households purchase commodities produced by businesses, the expenditures of
>households become the revenues of businesses, and businesses use those
>revenues to purchase productive services (labor, capital, and natural
>resources) from households. The incomes of households in turn sustain
>expenditures on purchases from businesses. In the opposite direction,
>commodities and services flow from businesses to households and the factors
>of production flow from households to businesses. Commodities and money flow
>in an unending circle that never runs down, and, with continuous investment
>in additional productive capacity, the flow can be ever expanding.
I'm not sure what is meant by "factors of production flow from households
to businesses" but in any case it's a side issue.
>
> This perception of the macroeconomy is misleading because it ignores
>scientific laws that place constraints on the flow of inputs into the
>economic system from the natural environment (Daly 1991a: 195-210). The flow
>of energy and matter through the economic system is in reality linear and
>unidirectional, not circular.
Some is circular, most not. Some recycling returns material to
manufacturing which then reprocesses it.
>Energy and matter flow from the environment to
>the economic system and waste matter and heat flow from the economic system
>to the environment. The flow begins with the depletion of energy and
>material resources and ends with the pollution of the environment with waste
>matter and heat.
>
> As Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly have gone to great lengths
>to demonstrate (Georgescu-Roegen 1971, 1973; Daly 1991 a), economists have
>failed in the construction of their macroeconomic models to recognize that
>the laws of thermodynamics dictate an absolute scarcity of energy and
>matter. It is this absolute scarcity that in turn negates the macroeconomic
>concept of circular flow.
There is no absolute scarcity of energy and matter, at least not in
practical terms. Ultimately, solar energy and nuclear fusion can supply
energy, and that energy can re-shape matter to our desires. It will be
billions of years before these energy sources run out.
>
> The essence of the first law of thermodynamics is that energy and matter
>can be neither created nor destroyed. In other words, the stock of matter is
>fixed in availability, as is the maximum flow rate of energy.
The first law of thermodynamics says nothing about the flow rate of energy.
And strictly speaking, the stock of matter is not fixed in availability
since energy can be converted into matter, although it is not practical to
do so.
>Thus there is an absolute scarcity of both.
There is a fixed amount of both, but a scarcity? If we assume an unlimited
technological capability, then there is enough matter and energy in the
universe to last us some 100+ billion years, until the last stars burn out.
>If energy and matter could be infinitely
>rearranged without loss, then this law would matter little for economic
>activity. The disordering of matter created by consumption could simply be
>compensated by the re-ordering of matter through production. Perpetual
>circular flow at a constant or even growing rate would indeed be possible.
>The problem is, whenever energy is used to re-order matter, something is
>permanently lost. This is explained by the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics won't be a limitation on us for billions
of years.
> The second law of thermodynamics basically says that when used to
>perform work, energy is converted to a more dispersed, less useful form. To
>put it another way, whenever energy is used, some of it is given off in the
>form of waste heat. The entropy of energy increases.
This is a misstatement of the 2nd law. The entropy of the *system* increases.
>No energy-using process
>is 100 percent efficient. Entropy is the amount of energy in a system that
>is not available to do work in that system.
Wrong. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system.
>An automobile burning petrol
>converts energy in a concentrated form into motion and waste heat. The
>automobile moves, but some of the energy is converted into waste heat
>unavailable for work.
>
> The flow of matter in production and consumption is also an entropic
>process. Highly concentrated forms of matter are converted into useful
>artifacts in production, and in consumption those artifacts are converted
>into dispersed waste material. The energy of nature - sun, wind, rain,
>oxidation - causes materials to break down and become more dispersed. A
>house, for example, slowly deteriorates over time. The paint chips off, wood
>rots, and the roof deteriorates. An increase in entropy is a decrease in
>order.
You should have said this before and stuck to it.
>As the house deteriorates, its material contents become less ordered.
>To reconcentrate all dispersed matter from a consumption process would
>require an impossibly large amount of energy, rendering 100 percent
>recycling an impossibility. Matter, like energy, is subject to entropy.
Entropy doesn't apply to matter or energy, it applies to *systems*. It
would not take an impossibly large amount of energy to restore the house to
its original ordered state. The entropy of the house, in that case, would
go down. But the entropy of the house and the systems used to supply energy
and materials for the house, taken all together, would go up.
> The extent to which the entropy of energy and matter impinges on the
>circular flow of commodities in the macroeconomy or harms the human
>individuals and natural environments that frame the macroeconomy is a
>fundamental issue that must be addressed by an environmental approach to
>macroeconomics. The entropic linear flow of energy and matter results in
>changes to both biotic and abiotic components of what can be called the
>global ecosystem. Abiotic components include the earth's atmosphere and
>climatic patterns, the input of solar energy, and the reserves of energy and
>materials in the earth's crust. The biotic components include a vast array
>of species and biological communities created and shaped by the interaction
>of natural evolutionary forces and ecological processes, some of which have
>been further altered and reshaped by the human hand.
These are important factors, but entropy plays no important part in
economics or the ecology of the environment. As a practical matter, we have
all the energy we need from the sun and from hydrogen fusion (given the
latter's technological achievement) to manage the global ecosystem.
>
> In short, the fundamental problem facing an environmental approach to
>macroeconomics as an area of intellectual inquiry is this: the global
>economy is growing while the global ecosystem is stable in terms of its
>capacity to supply energy and materials, absorb wastes, and provide a host
>of ecosystem services (Daly 1991 a: 180-194). As a result, stocks of
>nonrenewable resources in the earth's crust are being depleted, waste sinks
>are filling up, and human-created ecosystems (i.e. agriculture) are taking
>over a larger and larger percentage of global biotic productivity. Further
>consequences of these events include a plunge in global biotic diversity,
>the disappearance of natural habitats (such as tropical rain forests) and
>numerous environmental problems including global warming, air and water
>pollution, toxic wastes, and destruction of the protective ozone layer. To
>fully understand the impact of economic activity on ecosystems we need to
>know something of the services they provide. Then we will be able to move
>forward and consider the economy-environment relationship in detail.
These are serious problems, but given the will to do so they can be put
right. Neither entropy nor a limitation of energy are limiting factors.
Ron Ebert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*********************
I suspect to somebody who was still hung up on the notion that their god
created humans as his own exclusive chew toy, the discovery of other
sentient life would be a rude shock, somewhat like a three-year-old
experiences when Mom comes home with a new baby. - Dave Palmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
