by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 20:38:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'E')ven though there's anough energy hitting the earths surface in 1 minute to power the whole world for a year, are you seriously suggesting that we should return to 1700?
I have never advocated returning to any era, 1700's or otherwise.
I have advocated living within the limits of the received solar flux
and the ability of the environmental sinks to absorb that use with an appropriate population level to match the carrying capacity of the earth.
What that would look like might more resemble the 1700's than today. The limits of nature suggest that, not me.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 20:40:12
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I')n short MQ is a Luddite with romantic views about the horse drawn world...
As usual, when Wildwell resorts to ad hominem attacks, I know I have won the debate or I know it is an old school world view.
Shooting the Messenger
quote MQ:
Progress, then, is the amassing or ever greater amounts of material abundance which leads to a more ordered world. Science and technology are the tools to get the job done. Reduced to its simplest abstraction, progress is seen as the process by which the "less ordered" natural world is harnessed by people to create a more ordered material environment. Second Law tells us that just the opposite is the case.
That means whether you like it or not you are against all machines...
From dictionary.com
Luddite
# Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
# One who opposes technical or technological change
I reckon you fit pretty much in to the second definition and 1700 was a time before the industrial revolution which the horse, sail ship and physical strength ruled the world. So how is that an attack? I say it's the truth..
My position is technological change is good if it is:
1) Sustainable
2) Ethical. (within reason – life is after all about risk)
by EnergySpin » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:01:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I')n short MQ is a Luddite with romantic views about the horse drawn world...
As usual, when Wildwell resorts to ad hominem attacks, I know I have won the debate or I know it is an old school world view.
Shooting the Messenger My position is technological change is good if it is:
1) Sustainable
2) Ethical. (within reason – life is after all about risk)
If you permit me to intervene in your love affair, it is fair to say that Monte does come out as a Luddite. MQ if this is not the case you have to explicitly state so. Expressions like "solar flux" and sustainable energy can mean anything from harvesting wood to nano-tech solar panels and breeder nuclear reactors. NE is sustainable after all (plenty of fuel for millenia with proper management)
Technological change is efficient if it is sustainable ... and it is sustainable if it is efficient. Otherwise it is a temporary stop-gap to something else.
A technological artefact by itself has no ethics . The context of its use (and thus the human operator) determines the ethicity. Since modern theories of ethics do deal with harm questions we could try to characterize technologies along a putatitive ethical dimension but we have to be careful if we do that. For example biotech by itself is neutral; the human who splices genes into a BW bug is not ethical though.
And yes ... everything we do has risks. Even if we go back to the 1700s we will be taking risks. If we agree to characterise technologies as ethical on the basis of their negative consequences then most sane people would agree that going back to the 1700s is an unethical decision if practised on a global scale. This is because in the process many people would die and people were not happier then. For all intends and purposes Peak Happiness was in the 50s for the US (google Happiness Research)
But there are people who value the life of the human and the life an animal the same. For these people the well being of nature as a whole was greater in the 1700s without technology at all. And the majority of them do not see that technology can benefit the argument .
Some of therm are fundamentalists: technology is the big bad wolf no matter what. And it is fair to say that many of them think so because of lack of understanding of technology and hence try to control it by eliminating it (or trying to).
They are like the people with insecurities who buy SUVs or beat their wives instead of dealing with their insecurities - a bunch of losers in colloquial terms
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:03:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')First of all the 2nd law refers to isolated systems.
Second law applies to
all systems, open, closed and isolated. In isolated systems entropy always increases. In open and closed systems, it can be reduced or halted, but only by increasing the entropy somewhere else.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut they are as guilty as the anti-complexity prophets here who equate thermodynamic entropy with informational entropy and complexity.
Tell me you are not making that mistake yourself?
No, I am not. When energy is converted from one from to another that is not only a loss in the form of heat that we know of as entropy, but also an alteration in the nature of the energy. In the case of hydrocarbons from fossil fuels, this results in environmental degradaton as the entropy created is here on earth, not on the sun.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:05:19
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')quote MQ:
Progress, then, is the amassing or ever greater amounts of material abundance which leads to a more ordered world. Science and technology are the tools to get the job done. Reduced to its simplest abstraction, progress is seen as the process by which the "less ordered" natural world is harnessed by people to create a more ordered material environment. Second Law tells us that just the opposite is the case.
That means whether you like it or not you are against all machines...
No, that means we got it backwards. The more ordered world is the one less touched.
Take your personal attacks to the HOF or I will do it for you.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:08:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')If you permit me to intervene in your love affair, it is fair to say that Monte does come out as a Luddite. MQ if this is not the case you have to explicitly state so.
I am not a Luddite. My numerous posts and threads explain my position quite clearly.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by EnergySpin » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:12:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Second law applies to all systems, open, closed and isolated. In isolated systems entropy always increases. In open and closed systems, it can be reduced or halted, but only by increasing the entropy somewhere else.
But the text was treating the Earth as an isolated system ... that's what I was referring to. Trust me ... they make you try to derive the Law from the ensemble certain terrorist physics college professors I know. I'm not that naive ... merely cutting shortcuts.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
No, I am not. When energy is converted from one from to another that is not only a loss in the form of heat that we know of as entropy, but also an alteration in the nature of the energy. In the case of hydrocarbons from fossil fuels, this results in environmental degradaton as the entropy created is here on earth, not on the sun.
MQ if the system is open or closed system, entropy can go either way. Burning FFs did not increase the entropy because we altered the "nature of energy". An alteration in the nature of energy = conversion. We did not increase the avg temp by making electricity (change in the nature of energy) because the energy we are using is <0.01% of the energy the Earth is receving from the Sun. We increased the temp (higher entropy) because we released GCGs. Just because the final outcome is the same, does not mean that the causes are the same. If you argue that
any conversion will result in increased entropy (temperature) you are wrong (unless we increase the rate of our energy use by 10000 times). Wind power electricity and nuclear are almost carbon neutral ...
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:18:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')ow would we attempt this amassing and ordering if not with technology?
Monte seems to be saying even though we try to order we actually do the opposite because of the Second Law.
Can technologies be used in a way which does not attempt to violate the Second Law?
What technologies can be used in such a way? In anyone's opinion?
Is choosing to use technologies selectively the same as being a Luddite?
No, it is not a matter of violating 2nd law, but realizing the more complex a technology, the more it accelerates entropy. The more we try to "correct" the worse it gets.
What 2nd law tells us is that the simpler the better. Unless you just wish to party for a short while...
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by Wildwell » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:20:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')quote MQ:
Progress, then, is the amassing or ever greater amounts of material abundance which leads to a more ordered world. Science and technology are the tools to get the job done. Reduced to its simplest abstraction, progress is seen as the process by which the "less ordered" natural world is harnessed by people to create a more ordered material environment. Second Law tells us that just the opposite is the case.
That means whether you like it or not you are against all machines...
No, that means we got it backwards. The more ordered world is the one less touched.
Take your personal attacks to the HOF or I will do it for you.
Well get to the point man, I've never known anyone that sends out so many mixed messages...Less touched mean less development and less machines and possibly less progress..
by Ludi » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:24:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')quote MQ:
Progress, then, is the amassing or ever greater amounts of material abundance which leads to a more ordered world. Science and technology are the tools to get the job done. Reduced to its simplest abstraction, progress is seen as the process by which the "less ordered" natural world is harnessed by people to create a more ordered material environment. Second Law tells us that just the opposite is the case.
That means whether you like it or not you are against all machines...
No, that means we got it backwards. The more ordered world is the one less touched.
Take your personal attacks to the HOF or I will do it for you.
Well get to the point man, I've never known anyone that sends out so many mixed messages...Less touched mean less development and less machines and possibly less progress..
Less "progress" meaning less entropy?
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:26:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', ' ')Burning FFs did not increase the entropy because we altered the "nature of energy". .
I meant physical nature. In the case of hydrocarbons from fossil fuels, this results in environmental degradaton as the material entropy is created here on earth, not on the sun.
I have covered this ad nausem on many other threads. If you wish to pursue it, do it there, not here.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
by EnergySpin » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:29:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'H')ow would we attempt this amassing and ordering if not with technology?
Monte seems to be saying even though we try to order we actually do the opposite because of the Second Law.
Don't know what Monte says ... but the second law deals with the distribution of velocities of molecules.
Entropy is a derived quantityBoltzman derived the law from the viewpoint of Newtonian mechanics in the 19th century.... The history is detailed in the wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamicswhich states:
The second law of thermodynamics is a law about macroscopic irreversibility Needless to say that from the viewpoint of Classic Statistical Mechanics it is pointless to speak about the entropy of one moleculer or one atom. My knowledge of Quantum Thermodynamics is very limited though so I do not know how they apply the law there.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')Can technologies be used in a way which does not attempt to violate the Second Law?
I'm not sure what you mean ...
The 2nd law is not a religion ... for our scale of things the law cannot be broken. But it is fair to say that there are situations of small systems where the law does not hold true (nor that it should). The 2nd law is a probabilistic macroscopic law which is determined by more basic laws.
(Long Live Reductionism) Evans works seems to suggest that the law can be broken for extremely short periods of time and tiny objects. There is a theorem called Fluctuation theorem which does make such provisions.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')Is choosing to use technologies selectively the same as being a Luddite?
No of course not. Denying a role for any technology = luddite.
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
by MonteQuest » Sun 27 Nov 2005, 21:30:07
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'L')ess touched mean less development and less machines and possibly less progress..
In your world view of "progress."
Which is precisely the point; it is an unsustainable world view.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest
- Expert
-
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
-
