Ought to be a law that anytime anyone talks about "production" they preface it with "everything is a gift." People think they deserve for "discovering" stuff that is "just there" and then "making" it into something of "value". What hubris. It is ALL a gift. Those who receive a gift have a responsibility to return a gift or else they will destroy the relationships that brought about the gift. How can economists fantasize they have found a way around the most fundamental rule of life?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote: > Good comments. One quibble. Everything is a gift. The environment, the > sun, the water, the air. > > > > Whether we use it with intelligence and respect is the question. Whether > it’s dead and an object or alive and a learning organization that has to be > related to. The earth gives freely. The sun gives freely. Everything > is given freely, even the death of the plants and animals and ourselves for > food. > > > > That we are uncomfortable with who we are and what our intent is in this > life gives rise to pathologies that causes us to demean and destroy the web > of existence and to objectify everything. Thus we have to create stories > about why we do it and how we are OK for doing it. > > > > Agriculture did not create a better human but created the rise of disease. > The industrial era was a cancer on the face of both human competence and the > earth. If we had chosen the way of respect and careful integrated > growth rather than the windigo wildness of the woods, we might have built a > great civilization made up of cultural modules and all of the life forms. > Instead we chose the way of war and the way of war will destroy us. > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:13 AM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION > Subject: [Futurework] The working world of tomorrow > > > > The human race, so far, has been through two almighty revolutions -- > agriculture and industry. They both involved access to an entirely new form > of solar energy, whether contemporary or fossilized. This is the only "free > lunch" we have. Everything else has to be worked for. However, it must be > said straight away that, although economists are prolific in reminding us > that there are no free lunches, they themselves seldom think about energy > per se. In their training, student economists never learn about the basic > necessity of energy and that it permeates everything we do -- in peacetime > or wartime, for goods production or the supply of services. > > Because energy, and its sister subject, thermodynamics, is taught to all > student scientists as the very core of their various disciplines then, for > the time being, the subject of economics will continue to dangle in the air, > neither a science nor an arts subject. However, economists in, say, a couple > of centuries' time, might well see energy in an entirely different light > (solar!) because, by then, fossil fuel energy will be exorbitantly expensive > and we will almost certainly be accessing the bulk of our basic energy in an > entirely different way. > > It will be by the production of hydrogen. Unlike coal, oil or gas which > brings up underground radioactivity and scatters it everywhere on the > surface, damaging the DNA of life-forms, including ourselves, hydrogen will > be the perfect non-polluting fuel. It will only be derived as part of the > natural organic recycling processes which already takes place on the > surface. > > The total amount of energy that will be able to be derived from solar power, > via bacterial hydrogen, is prodigious -- at least several hundred times > greater than all the energy that we presently produce from fossil fuels and > other minor contributing technologies such as solar cells, wind power or > nuclear power (which all have to be subsidized by governments for cost > reasons -- and probably always will be). > > The commercial prospects are so enormous that, in America, Craig Venter's > Institute and many other teams in academe and the US Department of Energy, > as well as many other teams in England, Germany, China and Singapore are > seeking a bacterium of minimal genetic size which will produce hydrogen as > its main by-product (along with daughter-cells, of course!). A custom-made > bacterium, fed with water, a few trace minerals and energized by sunlight > would be able to make hydrogen all day long -- that is, all daylight day > long! > > Because the commercial, as well as the humanistic, benefits of hydrogen are > so fantastic then you can be sure that the search for the bacterium with the > right blend of genes is already intensive. It isn't easy, however. Although > there are many hundreds of different types of naturally occurring bacteria > which already produce hydrogen for their own internal processes there are > none as yet which, as it were, produce hydrogen free to air. > > One approach is to take an existing natural bacterium and trim its genes > away one by one until all it can do is to produce hydrogen (and daughter > cells from time to time!). The problem with this is that genes never act on > their own but only in association with others. If an apparently unnecessary > gene is trimmed away it might also stop another vital process. Another, > entirely opposite, approach is to find a natural bacterium with the smallest > number of genes and then to add new ones. But, once again, the addition of a > new hydrogen-producing gene might also cause other gene associations which > will do something quite different and will absorb all the energy received > from the sun and crowd out the hydrogen production. > > Complex though the problem is, the hydrogen-seeking geneticists are aided by > a major fact of evolution. All the genes in a hydrogen-producing bacterium > are found in all other life-forms (together with many more genes, of > course). Thus there are hundreds more teams of research biologists which are > also researching the same genes, albeit incidentally and in different > contexts. There is constant feedback between all researchers in genetics. A > discovery of one particular gene made by a "hydrogen team" in a lab on side > part of the world might supply a vital piece of knowledge required by a team > researching a human cancer on the opposite side. > > As a layman who takes an interest in genetics I can't possibly give an > informed opinion of when the first hydrogen-producing bacterium will be > realized. But the general tenor of opinion among biologists is that it > cannot be far away, despite the complexities that are involved. It might be > anytime from now onwards. I would guess that it is highly likely to be > achieved within 10 years and certainly within 50. > > Just like agriculture 10,000 years ago or industrialization 300 or so years > ago the new biological era of energy will not come overnight, despite its > overwhelming advantages. And, like the previous two eras, it will in due > course probably bring about the most radical transformation in the way we > work and live. My breakfast is calling me urgently so I won't attempt to try > and discuss this further here. Suffice it to say, however, that because > energy will be able to be produced anywhere on earth with a respectable > amount of sunshine, then the new energy technology is likely, in my view, to > cause a long-term dispersal of habitations and work places out of the > concentrated urban settings we have today and towards smaller communities > again. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
