[Ludi]

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

How?

[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]

Since technology is an energy transformer, and the more complex the technology, the more energy transformations

Please see the works of Howard Odum about eMergy for more details about how think'n is energy.

(Yet Mr. Odum seems to ignore the time = value calulations and assigns conversion of solar to power. Mr. Odum considers photovoltaic a waste due to the think'n that goes into a PV panel, yet there is no shorter sun photon -> energy system. )

[Guest]

Since the earth is all we have, what people do is, without question, of cosmic importance.

BTW, thank you for being a (ok, disturbing and "oh I don't wanna here it") voice of reason on this small portion of the internet.

[Guest]

raising it through such means as wireless communication freeing up copper .

Errr, the most energy effective means of communication is with a waveguide. Wireless communications is a lack of a waveguide VS a copper (or glass) waveguide.

All that wireless does is avoid the artifical property rights.

(In America, I can't place a wire from A to C because B may decide to not allow my wire to cross B's property. Unless I am a State sponsered monoply. If The State would have a common infrastructure for property owners for data like roads are a common infrastructure, then wireless would have little value.)

[Guest]

I am not as pessimistic as MonteQuest.

I do not like MonteQuest's vision, but it beats the Specop-007's vision of bloodletting with lead. Or a vision where the methane in the ocean all bubbles up and adversly effect the O2 needing life on the planet. Or where the volcano that is the YellowStone area erupts and creates enough ash that stops photosynthesis. Or where the Grey Aliens say "Anal probeing has given us all we need to know - time to teraform the planet for OUR needs". (or whatever nasty end of humans you can think of)

Not liking != a possible outcome. Changes are a-comming, and I lack knowledge as to how to "make sure" I'm one of the living and have "stuff" VS the dead or "stuffless". I can only attempt to adjust the odds in my favor. (and hope that others I care about shift odds in thier favor.)

(I lack the money to 'protect' myself or the willingness to hide out/raid-kill my neighbors for resources. The only way I see the 6-9 billion to less than 2 billion world population shift w/o massive man VS man bloodshed is via a pandemic, and no pandemic to date has had an 80% death rate - I believe the most lethal is at 20% death rate.)

[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]

That still means that some 650 million people are destitute, most but not all in Africa.

Actually its more like 3 billion globally (living on <US$2 /day, UN FAO 2004), with 15million in US living in 'severe poverty' (US Census 2003), with both #'s rising. Why not sponsor a child locally
tmazanec1, cut out shipping costs?

The thread has been running a while, and i'll readily admit I haven't read all of it. And i'm not sorry, because 'back of the envelope' calculations that exclude just about every practical consideration & make huge religio-tech assumptions are a waste of everybodies time. If Pollyannas can't see diminishing returns of 6+ billion ppl (PLUS their technology), there is no hope of rational discussion. I know this wasn't point of thread MQ, but the polly-poindexters are here in numbers.

1 trillion people? Shows what having your head shoved firmly up a grant-funded arse can do. Now if i can just find the right arse, i'll save a bundle on beer...

(oh, and the I=P.A.T equation: Technology is a multiplier, not a divider, in my old NRM textbooks.)

[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.

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.

The Earth is not a closed system, since it exchanges energy with the Universe. That's it. The inevitable increase of entropy that the 2nd Law predicts for closed systems doesn't apply. You can notice it because we aren't approaching what's called "thermal death", which happens in systems where entropy tends to increase all the time. Thermal death means that every point in the system is at the same temperature. Quite clearly, the Earth isn't in that situation, nor tending to it.

So, are the only two thermodynamic systems in existence to which the laws applies, the Universe(which is the only true isolated system we know of) and the earth?

The 2nd law applies to every system, whether closed or open. But the implication that entropy always increases is only true for a closed system. For open systems, what it says is that the reduction of entropy in the open system is possible, but only at the cost of increasing entropy somewhere else. In the case of Earth, it means that we can have relatively low entropy here, as long as we orbit round the sun, which provides us nicely with extra energy all the time. The sun is increasing its entropy, and that will mean that in millions of years it will follow the normal evolution for a star of its type, and will become cooler and cooler.
Of course, within Earth, we have a lot of smaller systems, and the 2nd Law applies to them, too. Very often, the reduction of entropy of a subsystem in Earth causes an increase in another subsystem also within Earth. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that the total entropy on Earth is increasing, because we have the sun to compensate.

Energy transformations produce waste heat as the result of 2nd law, but they also produce physical changes, deterioration, decay. Peeling paint is entropy at work.

Correct.

Nature maintains itself, but man-made objects require constant maintenance to combat the ravages of entropy.

Monte, do you honestly believe that laws of physics apply in a different way to man-made objects and natural ones? I'm afraid not. Nature also sufferes deterioration and decay. In the case of living beings, it's called "growing old" and "dying".

The more complex the object or technology, the more maintenance (thus energy) required to keep entropy at bay.

Maintenance does require energy. But this doesn't mean that the amounts of energy our civilization normally spends on maintenance are anywhere near the minimum possible. There is a lot of energy saving measures that could be taken and would make a significant difference.

Since the natural biosphere is powered by solar energy, the ordering and maintenance of the material creation of human activity on the Earth’s surface can continue far into the future by the export of entropy into space. But any economy based on energy sources other than the direct solar flow impinging on the Earth’s surface (i.e., fossil fuels, as well as nuclear and geothermal energy) must inevitably alter the heat budget by the emission of heat radiation over and above the natural flow from the surface and exceed the carrying capacity of the enironment.

The energy in fossil fuels comes, ultimately, from the sun as well. This is because fossil fuels are the remains of living creatures that lived in prehistoric times, and they got their energy from the sun. But it's true that their energy is being released much faster than it would be in natural circumstances.

If we were generating more heat and emmiting more to space, that wouldn't be a problem, because it would cancel out.
In fact, the amounts of heat generated by our industries isn't comparable to the amounts of heat we are getting from the sun, so there's no reason to worry about that.
But there is a different problem, which is that pollution can vary the amount of heat that gets emmited, or the amount that gets received. The global temperature on Earth may vary because of this, and it's what's called Global Warming (because most scientist estimate that the pollutants that cause a hotter Earth will be the most important). But this has little to do with the heat that we are generating directly on industries.

Tapping solar energy directly merely utilizes a small part of the immense flow to do work which ultimately would be simply converted into waste heat and radiated into space anyway. In this case, there is a sustainable balance, given we respect the other environmental constraints set by nature...at least until the sun goes nova.

True. But as I explained before, using other energy sources, in principle, shouldn't be a problem if they are renewable and non-polluting. Maybe at some point in the future we might be using, say, nuclear fusion to a point that the extra heat gets worrying, but we aren't anywhere near that.

This means we are seriously altering the heat budget of the earth, producing the "heat island" effect in cities and industrial centers, as well as the well-known global warming.

The "heat island" effect is really a product of excessive heat dissipation from industries, but doesn't really affect global temperature. Global warming is caused by a different problem, like I said before.

Using more technology in an attempt to solve this is unsustainable, as is our present attempt. Until our population and our economy energy base are reflective of the limits of our environment, and based upon the solar flow of energy from the sun, creating more complex technology to go around these limits will just make it farther for us to fall.

I don't deny that the environment puts very real limits to what we can do without getting into real trouble. But there isn't any reason why complex technology couldn't be the solution out of our problems.

I see that in your head you have the following equation:
complex=low entropy=high energy to maintain

These two equals are only approximately true. I explain:

First equal: A complex system does mean low entropy. However, our intuitive notion of "complex" isn't always equal to the physical notion of "complex". For example, a human being is actually at much lower entropy than the most complex machine we have ever made.

Second equal: You do need energy to maintain a system in low entropy. But the amounts of energy that we actually use to maintain our technology are ridiculously high. Think about how much energy we need to stay alive, and compare with the amount of energy our machines need. Think also that our most complex technology, which is electronics, is actually a technology that uses very small amounts of energy compared with other industries.

So your argument that we should stay low tech because of entropy is, quite plainly, invalid.

But we may still find that we have to revert to a lot of old technologies, simply because we don't find a clean renewable source of energy that can power our current industry.

[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]

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.

It's estimated that 1.2 billion people are homeless or live in inadequate shelter worldwide. Does that count as "destitution?"

http://www.endhomelessness.org/pub/onli ... 040502.htm

[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]

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.

Why here, Doly? Why now? Monte's arguments on entropy aren't particularly relevant to this thread, tho they have got a mention.
I didn't find your post cleared up anything, or even raised anything that hasn't be rehashed numerous times on other threads. Some clarifications:

Thermal death means that every point in the system is at the same temperature. Quite clearly, the Earth isn't in that situation, nor tending to it.

Are you saying the earth isn't cooling?

For open systems, what it says is that the reduction of entropy in the open system is possible, but only at the cost of increasing entropy somewhere else. In the case of Earth, it means that we can have relatively low entropy here, as long as we orbit round the sun, which provides us nicely with extra energy all the time.

This presumes that there is some magical positive balance between the quanta & forms of energy earth is receiving & emitting: is there any evidence for that? Why is the cooling of our rock not mentioned in your neat reality?

Monte, do you honestly believe that laws of physics apply in a different way to man-made objects and natural ones? I'm afraid not. Nature also sufferes deterioration and decay. In the case of living beings, it's called "growing old" and "dying".

Obviously, but nature doesn't require setting fire to quite so much stuff to maintain itself as technology does - thats the point.

There is a lot of energy saving measures that could be taken and would make a significant difference.

So are you admitting tech is an energy sink?

But as I explained before, using other energy sources, in principle, shouldn't be a problem if they are renewable and non-polluting. Maybe at some point in the future we might be using, say, nuclear fusion to a point that the extra heat gets worrying, but we aren't anywhere near that.

Nuclear fusion renewable & nonpollluting? excuse me, i must have wandered into a discussion from another planet...

Think also that our most complex technology, which is electronics, is actually a technology that uses very small amounts of energy compared with other industries.

sorry, wrong planet again...

So your argument that we should stay low tech because of entropy is, quite plainly, invalid.

No, i don't see. There is no coherent argument here.

[MonteQuest]

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.

MonteQuest wrote:

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 isolated, 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.

Doly wrote:
The Earth is not a closed system, since it exchanges energy with the Universe. That's it. The inevitable increase of entropy that the 2nd Law predicts for closed systems doesn't apply. You can notice it because we aren't approaching what's called "thermal death", which happens in systems where entropy tends to increase all the time. Thermal death means that every point in the system is at the same temperature. Quite clearly, the Earth isn't in that situation, nor tending to it.

How was what you just quoted by me confusing? People confuse the terminology and it creates endless debate. Let me clarify once more:

Isolated system: No exchange of matter or energy. The universe is the only isolated system we know of. In this type of system, entropy always increases. 2nd Law.

Closed system: Energy is exchanged but not matter. The Earth is a closed system. It exchanges solar energy with the universe, but not matter, save the occasional meteorite. Entropy can be reduced and reversed, but only with an even greater increase of entropy somewhere else.

Open system: Both energy and matter are exchanged. Living organisms are open systems. Entropy can be reduced and reversed, but only with an even greater increase of entropy somewhere else--same as in the closed system.

People too often use “closedâ€

[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]

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.

I agree totally, but there are limits to what we can do even with that redirected energy that would be radiated into space anyway. That's what we need to learn and adhere to.

What has been different of course with the use of fossil fuels is that the biosphere has received an increased state of entropy as you point out, and to go further and consume faster with their use would increase the entropy more. But the only new alternative energy source beyond fossil fuels that would increase the entropy of the biosphere like fossil fuels is nuclear fission/fusion. Which is essentially dispersing the enormous energy bound up in the nuclei and spreading it out to the biosphere through heat, and electrical machinery, etc.

Yes, and again, whether using technology is increasing the entropy state of the biosphere is not my point of contention. Thermodynamic equilibrium has little to do with the physical state of affairs in a system. You can have equilibrium, but still have a mess on your hands, or an uninhabitable planet.