[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')Montquest, you have just flatly stated Drexler doesn't believe something which he clearly stated in his book. When I see such deception, all your credibility went out the window. If you will so misrepresent an author's views to debunk him if he disagrees with you, than you are on a par with creationists who distort what evolutionists write to make them look ridiculous. Maybe you do not want human extinction...I was simply carrying out what seemed your viewpoint to its logical conclusion. I would be interested in what kind of a world you would set up if you could.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'D')on't try to argue with MQ, he's basically always right .

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'M')Q says he has been studying this for thirty years. Drexler has been studying technology for thirty years. They both seem very smart, and they disagree. I don't KNOW which one is right, I am in a gray area. I know that if we don't work on nanotechnology and other such technologies, it will get a darker gray. We are working some, I wish we would work more. But MQ said Drexler said the opposite of what he said, and unless MQ explains this, I cannot trust anything he posts.

[tmazanec1]

Tyler_JC:
I never said give up farming. We do farming, industry, services, science and technology. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Personally, I expect both. Your trees are prettier, and global warming won't be a crisis as soon as oil shortages anyway.
MonteQuest:
The second law applies to everything. Drexler writes (page 158) "Entropy is a standard scientific measure of waste heat and disorder. Whenever activities consume useful energy, they produce entropy; the entropy of the world therefore increases steadily and irreversibly. Ultimately, the dissipation of useful energy will destroy the basis of life. " So he does NOT deny that entropy affects humamity just as well as anything. Entropy manifests as waste heat. That is why I used the limit as when our waste heat becomes a significant factor in the Earth's climate. Our useful energy comes from the sun. The waste heat radiates into space. By your reasoning, all technolgy is hastening the end of everthing, since all technology produces waste heat. There is a limit on the ultimate level of population the earth can sustain at a reasonable First World standard of living before waste heat begins affecting climate significantly. It is somewhere above the present population, but not greatly above it. Drexler knows we cannot grow forever, or even for a historically long period of time.
If the planet must show increasing disorder, either you are a Creationist, or you must explain how the planet went from a lifeless ball of steaming rock to the Pleistocene level of biodiversity (I assume you do not consider Holocene society as an improvement) without violating the second law. Either the Earth has been running down since Eden, or it somehow got to its present state from a protoplanetary nebula. Life is nanotechnology, it proves that nanotechnology works by using sunlight as its power source. At some point, we will have to pave over a sizable area of our tropics with solar cells (more efficient with nanotechnology) to run our civilization. 10 billion will likely need a small enough percentage (depending on your value system) to do this. 100 billion likely could not . Throw fusion into the mix? You have just effectively made the Earth a tiny star, which will warm up the more people you have. Drexler knows EXPONENTIAL GROWTH WILL SOON STOP ON THIS PLANET. Nanotechnology will raise the carrying capacity to maybe 10 billion, but not 100 billion...unless you want the planet to start resembling a New York in August, which I do not. And Drexler's book has been well received too.
Rifkin thinks the area to consider is the planet. The system in which entropy increases is the UNIVERSE. The energy source is the sun, the energy sink is the black darkness of space, As long as the sun burns, we can use it for energy, until we use enough to directly affect the planet's climate. And global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, not thermal pollution. If we level out at c9 billion as we seem headed to, and improve efficiency with nanotechnology while getting decent solar power, we can still sustain our world at a good standard of living for everyone. But we will not grow orders of magnitude, and Drexler knows this (I am talking about Earth now, not his long term hopes for space).
Drexler does not just call Rifkin bunk...he does his homework. The Salt-Water Bottle Experiment is a demonstration of why the fourth law of thermodynamics is not a law, for example.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t some point, we will have to pave over a sizable area of our tropics with solar cells (more efficient with nanotechnology) to run our civilization. 10 billion will likely need a small enough percentage (depending on your value system) to do this.

[tmazanec1]

Ludi:
Maybe I should have said sub-tropics. That is where the deserts are, right? Death Valley, Sahara, Saudi Arabia (not again ) for example. Another good place for nano-solar-cells would be the roof and driveway of your house. They are already covered up, why not (shrug)? The point I was making, in total, is that even with nanotechnology there comes a point where the whole planet is paved over., then growth HAS to stop. I would prefer it do so well before then. Population seems to be leveling out at about 9 billion. Give those billions a lifestyle like Sweden, for example. Nanotechnology can do this. But I am not an economist, and I want growth to stop before we destroy the biosphere. Even with nanotechnology lightening the impact, that will occur with just a few more doublings. And it is a cliffhanger if we will even get the nanotech in time. A stable society with nanotechnology and 10 billion people would be both nice and possible. One with 100 billion people may be possible, but I would not want to live there. One with a trillion is very doubtful.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') stable society with nanotechnology and 10 billion people would be both nice and possible.

[tmazanec1]

Ludi, google "engines of creation". The text of the book should be your first hit. Drexler spends a good part of his work explaining just this. You don't even have to pay a penny. I especially recomment Chapter 8 "Long Life in an Open World", in particular sections "Healing and Protecting the Earth", and "Long Life and Population Pressure", pages 120-125 of the "dead tree" edition. I would copy and paste them, but that is getting dangerously close to copyright problems.

[tmazanec1]

MonteQuest said:
Flat earth economists and he have a lot in common: they don't believe in the limits of a finite world.
Drexler said (page 124):
This will open room enough for an era of growth and prosperity far beyond any precedent. Yet the solar system itself is finite, and the stars are distant. On Earth, even the cleanest assembler-based industries will produce waste heat. Concern about population and resources will remain important because the exponential growth of replicators (such as people) can eventually overrun any finite resource base.

(and here he was not talking about just the Earth, like I am, but the Solar System. That is an issue for the 22nd Century, if we make it, if not the 23rd. I am concerned about the early 21st).

He also said (page 58):
Regular doubling means exponential growth. Replicators multiply exponentially unless restrained, as by lack of room or resources. Bacteria do it, and at about the same rate as the replicators just described. People replicate far more slowly, yet given time enough they, too, could overshoot any finite resource supply. Concern about population growth will never lose its importance. Concern about controlling rapid new replicators will soon become important indeed.

Finally he said (page 163):
Steady expansion will open new resources at a rate that will increase as the frontier spreads deeper and wider into space. This will result not in linear growth, but in cubic growth. Yet Malthus was essentially right: exponential growth will outrun cubic growth as easily as it would linear. Calculations show that unchecked population growth, with or without long life, would overrun available resources in about one or two thousand years at most. Unlimited exponential growth remains a fantasy, even in space.

This is the ultimate, he is talking about near-light-speed interstellar travel. IMHO we are in the 24th Century now at soonest. But even this is not enough to make him a flat earth economist. It may be MonteQuest's misinterpretation of Drexler's view on limits that is causing the problem.
I belong to a forum called the Fourth Turning Forum. We hold (or at least discuss) a theory which holds that American society goes through upheavels about every 80 years for reasons to complex to go into here (think circa 1780, 1860, 1940). About five years ago, a poster on that site had a long running debate with my opinion that the "Crisis of 2020" would feature an extreme energy crunch causing a "recession" rivaling the Great Depression. He derided me as a "doommonger". Since that time, my estimates of the approximate date of the Cruch have moved to c2010 and my estimates of our getting out of it have gone from "almost certain" to "it's a toss-up". Yet on that site, DEDICATED to a near term cultural Emergency, I was called a Cassandra. I have grown more pessimistic since then, and am now decried as a Pollyanna on this site. Interesting observation.

[tmazanec1]

Apologies, the middle quote was from page 58.
Gotta learn to preview, not just read over quickly.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'B')y your reasoning, all technology is hastening the end of everything, since all technology produces waste heat.

[tmazanec1]

Credible studies seem to mean that you agree with them. Fremlin (IIRC) once did a study where the Earth was covered by a couple miles of crowded people surrounded by a couple more miles of machinery. I am sure he was wrong...if he was right, I would consider that as Hell on Earth. I have seen a number of estimates several times the present human population with present technology. With present technolgy I do not see those as credible, but they are defensible by their proponents at least. With nanotechnology and a stable population of 8-10 billion we can have a pleasant living standard. We could not have 1 billion without modern science and industry, but we could have a couple billion with it. But we overshot that and we must have "post-modern" technology to have that livable c9 billion. That is why I am pushing nanotech so hard. If we were hunters and gatherers we could not even have 100 million, much less a billion...we needed agriculture for that. And energy flow is what will ultimately limit human impact on the planet no matter what technology we produce. Yes, we have climate problems...not from our waste heat, but from our waste gasses. That is why solar power is so important, and it can be made practical with nanotechnology. But with scores of billions, we will have those problems no matter how we get the energy. I would rather have the 9 billion and nanotechnology to end destitution, moderate and reduce relative poverty ("the poor you will always have with you") and start at least partially, if not mostly, healing the Earth.

[Ludi]

Why don't you know your subject well enough to tell us about it? You keep making these claims for nanotechnology, but you don't explain how nanotechnology will support all those people without disrupting Earth's life systems. I don't care what Drexler has to say, he's not on this forum, I want to know what you have to say about it, tmazanec.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', 'C')redible studies seem to mean that you agree with them. Yes, we have climate problems...not from our waste heat, but from our waste gasses. That is why solar power is so important, and it can be made practical with nanotechnology. But with scores of billions, we will have those problems no matter how we get the energy. I would rather have the 9 billion and nanotechnology to end destitution, moderate and reduce relative poverty ("the poor you will always have with you") and start at least partially, if not mostly, healing the Earth.

[tmazanec1]

I admitted (and quoted) that the poor will always be with us. Our threat right now is PO, not global warming. Even if we go to a post-carbon fuel technology, we will hit global warming from waste heat eventually if we do not stop growing...and sooner rather than later. Then cleaning up Greenhouse gases will no longer be enough. The only countries which have stopped growing are some European ones and Japan...the destitute ones in Africa, Latin America and southern Asia are the very ones which are growing fastest. I once read (on paper) a review of the history of carrying capacity estimates...they were all over the map. If history is anything to go by, the only way to stop population growth is education of women combined with a decent standard of living, or else the collapse scenario. I prefer the first. And nanotechnology can provide these. And nanotechnology can spread itself with unequaled speed...my view of history is that new science enters the mainstream faster and faster as change accelerates. If not for this, my estimate of our chances would be bad indeed. But this is why I am pushing for nanotech so hard...we DON"T have much time left.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')...we DON"T have much time left.

[tmazanec1]

We are altering carrying capacity in two ways. We are lowering it through such means as soil erosion, and raising it through such means as wireless communication freeing up copper (examples) Nanotech can shift the balance in our favor.
I have seen references to carrying capacity all over the web, but not links to the actual studies (high OR low). For example, Revelle is cited as estimating 40 billion. Others as 1 or 2 billion. But in neither case can I find the math. Cohen wrote a book whose reviews say the estimates tend to fall between something like 6 and 16 billion. I thing this was the paper study I referred to. He goes back to Leuwenhoekk (sp?) the discoverer of microbes, who attempted the first calculation (I think it was 13 billion). I have a layman's knowledge of nanotechnology, and the historical background to know technology is changing faster and faster, and that affluence tends to lower and eventually stop population growth. I will attempt to find someone who can explain these issues clearer than I can.

[Guest]

It seems Tmazanec1 is pushing for nanotec for photovoltaic powergeneration. Current state-of-the-art solar panels are 30% effishient, so lot's assume that these nanobot-made ones are 20%.

240 watts fall on the average m^2 when averaged over a 24 hour cycle. So, let's say that it comes down to 100 watts when you count wheather. The energy usage of the U.S. is 10^13 watts ( including everything - oil, coal, wood, ect. )

This means that you need 5*10^5 kilometers^2 just to power the U.S.
That's 10^6 kilometers for the current standard of living for 6 billion.

So, to do this, you need a 1,000 kilometer by 1,000 rectangle of desolate grey pavement some where. That's big, man.

Actually, the bots will be better at capturing carbon than any plant, other than possibly well-tended algie (30%)

[Guest]

That's um... actually 10,000*1,000 kilometers for the planatery usage.

Woops - I need to proofread better...

[tmazanec1]

We will not have it in a 1,000*10,000 Km strip. We will have it on rooftops, driveways, and in places like the Empty Quarter of the Saudi peninsula (why do those guys ALWAYS luck out?). And we should be able to improve the efficiency somewhat. But our changing the Earth's albedo and the waste heat from using that solar panel will eventually overcome the savings in greenhouse gasses. We WILL have to stop growing in the near future, at least as fast as we are slowing down now. And we will have to stop being as materialistically wasteful as Americans currently are, and arrange our lifesyles for conservation along with reasonable affluence and a minimum of wealth inequality. I am not as optimistic as Drexler (I think he has the right idea, he just pushes it too far) and I am not as pessimistic as MonteQuest. Maybe that is a good sign?