[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ctually, the bots will be better at capturing carbon than any plant, other than possibly well-tended algie (30%)

[MonteQuest]

A credible study by Dr. David Pimentel, a Cornell University Agricultural Sciences Professor, entitled “Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment" found that, " The "optimum population" that the Earth can support with a comfortable standard of living is less than 2 billion, including fewer than 200 million people in the United States.â€

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Since technology is an energy transformer, and the more complex the technology, the more energy transformations

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')ince the earth is all we have, what people do is, without question, of cosmic importance.

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')raising it through such means as wireless communication freeing up copper .

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')I am not as pessimistic as MonteQuest.

[mgibbons19]

Usually I like what Monte has to say, but with all due respect there are some issues that trouble me with this discussion.

1) knowing the 2nd law, and what it means, does not mean we know the whole story. Only (G)od knows if there is not room for an increase in order or not. Taking too hard a line with entropy implies that there is also no more room for life to evolve. Since evolution of new life forms = greater complexity, there would be an increase in entropy. But it is a big system, and we cannot konw all the variables. There may be room to squeeze more complexity out of the system, at highly efficient levels, with litttle increase in entropy. If not, then evolution seemingly must stop. And if we already know all the variables then we are (G)od. And if ultimately entropy is the problem then TMs discussion of waste heat vs greenhouse gasses is valid. The problem isn't the 2nd law - the problem is the limits to our human knowledge.

2) TM is referring to the demographic transition, and it is the theory tmost development-helps-the-poor types are working on. Pop's grow quickly when some development kills off infant mortality and lengthens life spans. In that environment humans have too many kids. They no longer need to replace those lost to these variables. But kids are a lot of work and expense, and when faced with carrying those costs, industrial people will try to limit their growth. This is why the most industrialized countries aren't fertile at their replacement rates. They are growing by immigration - and we are too. Among those who accept the demographic transition, 9billion is the accepted guess. This is not a carrying capacity guess, but a mathematical one.

3) I would grant that MQ is right that PO is fundamentally a limits problem. Even if we could solve the problem this time around with nanotech, there will be another enironmental variable that will cause us trouble. But this isn't new. This is the story of humanity. Anyone who thinks the future is different than now is FOS. Ppl will starve because we are a species and we grow until we reach that point. No more to it than that. So the problem quickly becomes do we try and deal with this particular environmental problem or not? GH Mead says science is evolution made self conscious.

3) Finally, there are too many ppll on this site who apparently have a line to (G)od and know the future. They seem to know what tech will work and what will not. Not only that, but they know man's place in the world (sounds a lot like medieval religion if you ask me). There is no reason at all to not do all we can to try and deal with this problem in as many ways as possible. If there is tech that allows us to be more efficient, we might as well try. If we can find ways to meet our needs using older low tech, we might as well try. People who know the Ending or know the Right way to go from here - well they make me nervous.

[tmazanec1]

MonteQuest's calculation of entropy is wrong. First, note that entropy
and energy are basically two sides of the same coin. Entropy sounds
more physics-y, but you're more likely to get the right answer if you
just look at energy flows.

It's true that creating order requires a bit of energy (which must
correspondingly increase entropy somewhere). But creating physical
structure requires far more energy, at least with today's technology.
Even pushing electrons through computer chips requires many times more
energy than would be required simply to fight entropy and create logical
structure. This may not be the case in another few decades--which is
what "reversible logic" is about. The fact that our logic is not
reversible today is equivalent to saying that our logic spends far more
energy than it needs to create order. A computer technology that wasted
less energy to create the same amount of order would create less entropy.

Here's an easy comparison to make: Which requires more resources: your
desktop PC, or ENIAC? ENIAC, by orders of magnitude: more to build, and
also more to run. Which does more computation? Your PC, by orders of
magnitude.

You can quote me on that. I don't have time to join the discussion, but
feel free to post what I said above, and to give my email address (as
"cphoenix at crnano.org") if anyone wants to argue with me.

As to resource usage, some thoughts that you may find useful:

Americans today watch, I think, about four hours of TV per day. This
doesn't take a whole lot of energy, even when you count the energy cost
of the TV. If we turned everyone into full-time couch potatoes with
advanced entertainment systems, our resource usage could become quite
low. But we're also well-trained consumers. Businesses have developed
to churn our resources. And there's very little incentive to think
long-term. We can't tell the difference between creative destruction
and simple waste.

According to this article, SUVs were invented by accident, and
automakers are quite contemptuous of consumers for preferring them. But
that doesn't stop them from selling them...

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

On California highways, last I checked (and going back to the late
90's), the speed limit for cars was 65, and for trucks, 55. An SUV is a
truck. If they had simply enforced the 55 MPH speed limit for SUVs,
they could have stopped the SUV craze dead in its tracks. They didn't...

Chris

[tmazanec1]

There is a brief estimate in Nanomedicine of the amount of heat we could
release into the environment without causing climate change: 10^15
watts, 1% of incoming solar energy.
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.5.7.htm

With advanced technology (including efficient food synthesis), 1000
watts should be more than enough for a comfortable life. That implies a
carrying capacity of a trillion people. Of course, that assumes
everyone has access to advanced technology, and heat pollution credits
are distributed equally. In other words, it completely contradicts
human nature.

So what effect does unequal wealth distribution have? A comment I made
on our blog is relevant:
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/ ... downs.html

"""""
Assume 10^15 solar watts are available without causing excessive climate
change (from Freitas's calculation). Assume the world's GDP is
comparable to individual salaries. The poorest people earn less than $1
per day; figure $200 per year. The GDP is about $50 trillion. If
everyone bought heat pollution credits according to their share of GDP,
the poorest would get about four trillionths of the 10^15 total wattage,
or 4000 watts.

So if things are no more unequal in the future than they are today, even
the poorest people will be able to live. Of course, things might easily
get more unfair; powerful technology will tend to concentrate power. On
the third hand, it shouldn't be assumed that the richest and most
powerful people are the most to blame; often it's petty warlords or
corrupt bureaucrats who keep lifesaving aid away from starving people.
"""""

Chris

[MonteQuest]

I know that many here don't agree with my position. It is understandable. It goes against conventional wisdom and smacks of being backwards, but obviously I am convinced it is not, as are many others like Jeremy Rifkin, Herman Daly, Elmar Altvater, and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. I don't claim to know the right way to go from here, all I can do is try to explain the parameters as I see them. And I guess I must be FOS, mgibbons19, because I think the future is going to be much much different than the past.

To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means in everyday life, consider the following:
[quote="Isaac Asimov"]“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.â€

[tmazanec1]

Chris Petersen emailed me an estimate of 1 trillion as the carrying capacity of Earth (reproduced above). Let's say he is off in amount of waste heat the Earth can tolerate by a factor of 10. Let's say he is also off in his estimate of the amount of energy a person needs by a factor of 10. Lower the estimate by two orders of magnitude, A nanotech world can still support 10 billion people. We seem to be leveling off at or below this. It is only half again as crowded as Real Life 2005. I could tolerate this, but I would not want much more...I like open space as much as anyone.
And we have been "doing the same thing" since the Scientific Revolution and Renaissance almost six centuries ago. Today, nine tenths of the human race live at what a person of 1405 would consider royalty or even magic. That still means that some 650 million people are destitute, most but not all in Africa. I have adopted one of the impoverished children in western Honduras as a mission sponsor. This is one of the best decisions I have made in a long time. Please consider doing this yourself.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tmazanec1', ' ')That still means that some 650 million people are destitute, most but not all in Africa.

[Doly]

Monte, I've seen your argument about entropy many times in posts, and I'd like to say that it's a mixture of right concepts and wrong ones. I'll try to sort them out here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')I am constantly met with the statement "that the 2nd law only applies to isolated systems and the earth is not an isolated system." Most people say closed sytem, and in some places it is written that way, but correctly stated, it is islolated, meaning no exchange of matter or energy. In this type of system, entropy always increases. Sometimes, it seems they mean that the 2nd law doesn't apply to earth, which is a closed system, exchanging only energy and not matter with the Universe.

[tmazanec1]

These are hundreds of millions in poverty, not destitution. You can live in poverty in the Third World on these kinds of incomes (although I sure as **** would not want to). Destitution is different. I pointedly cut Chris Petersen's estimate to 1% of its initial value.
OK, people, I can learn (I learned about Jevon's paradox here, and have emailed Chris about it...I have recently received a response that it is something to think about). I can also change my mind about how things will unfold (I started a thread about this very subject). I am more pessimistic than I used to be that we will get nanotech in time...however, if we don't I still feel we will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, not that nanotech is fundamentally "wrong".
On the subject of this thread...no, a soft landing will not worsen the end result, because the demographic transition can stabilize our population within 150% of its present value and nanotech can make that population sustainable, IMHO. I would prefer this to a hard landing. YMMV. I guess we will just have to respectfully disagree on the truth of the title of this thread. Thank you for your input.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hese are hundreds of millions in poverty, not destitution. You can live in poverty in the Third World on these kinds of incomes (although I sure as **** would not want to). Destitution is different.

[tmazanec1]

OK, I will update my estimate to one in five people. I apologize. That still means four in five live a luxurious to literally fantastic lifestyle compared to 15th Century standards. This is technology's track record over the last half millennium.

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'M')onte, I've seen your argument about entropy many times in posts, and I'd like to say that it's a mixture of right concepts and wrong ones. I'll try to sort them out here.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'M')onte, I've seen your argument about entropy many times in posts, and I'd like to say that it's a mixture of right concepts and wrong ones. I'll try to sort them out here.

[Guest]

[quote="MonteQuest"][quote="Doly"]
This technological world we live in that is based upon infinite growth in a finite world is unsustainable, always has been, and always will be. Why does anyone think it will be different in the future? There are no techno-fixes; we must powerdown and learn to cope and adapt to a world that has limits and boundaries that we can not go around anymore. The “externalâ€

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', ' ')
Solar, wind, and hydro power are essentially tapping natural energy flows into Earth's biosphere from the sun and Earth's inner heat. So tapping these sources of energy does not increase the overall entropy in the biosphere it merely redirects it for our purposes.