[somethingtosay]

However, in order to maintain this order and complexity, a continuous flow of cheap energy (actually an ever increasing amount due to energy loss as "waste") must continually be pumped into the system.

Without oil, we will not be able to fight entropy. Chaos will ensue until we reach some new state of equilibrium where we can meet our needs for order and complexity with the non-oil energy sources. To reach this new equilibrium, we will have to abandon the energy intensive activities with define our way of life and learn to be satisfied with lives that are governed by renewable energy resources. 7 billion people cannot survive on this planet under those conditions.

I agree with this. You have put it better than I could. I'd like to add Oil has allowed us to create a system over the last 150 years that is structurally harmful to the future. We do not have 150 years to transform it into something else as the energy source that caused the transformation will be unavailable. (Also politically impossible)

While I am crisscrossing North America, I look at all activites see in terms of how oil allows the activity to occur. I then take oil out of the equation and see how the activity can be acomplished. Usually the activity cannot be done. For example there is a tremendous amount of maintenance done every year to the transportation network. Roads are repaired/rebuilt and new ones built (adding more maintenance work in the future). In the north they are plowed every time it snows, In the south they are mowed all the time. Maintenance will always increase, the more complex the system gets. Once we start the change over to a new equilibrium, I am convinced that current infrastructure will be in the wrong places and be a serious impediment to a new order. On the other hand I do like seeing the older technologies like canals and locks as they can still function 100 years after they were built. ( though in time they become more difficult to repair as the resources needed to repair them come from farther away)

Going back to MontQuest's original Question, At some time in the past man thought he had escaped of the physical laws that binds the the planet and all life on it. It probably started when the idea of ownership of property was entrenched into society, as thats when control over resources and hence control over ones own destiny became possible.

[bobcousins]

How we got here is simple: the laws of physics and evolution. Atoms organise themselves according to those laws. Any notions of order, disorder, complexity etc are subjective and unnecessary.

That aside, it seems to me that the key point is always missed. In discussions of energy the problem is stated as where to get it, or how to use it more efficiently. The real problem is overpopulation.

Over history, civilisations collapse primarily because of population outgrowing resources. So addressing energy supply is pretty irrelevant, whatever level it is we are going to exceed it.

The only true solution is to limit human population.

[MonteQuest]

How we got here is simple: the laws of physics and evolution. Atoms organise themselves according to those laws. Any notions of order, disorder, complexity etc are subjective and unnecessary.

That aside, it seems to me that the key point is always missed. In discussions of energy the problem is stated as where to get it, or how to use it more efficiently. The real problem is overpopulation.

Over history, civilisations collapse primarily because of population outgrowing resources. So addressing energy supply is pretty irrelevant, whatever level it is we are going to exceed it.

The only true solution is to limit human population.

How we originated is not the question I posed. What lead us to this crossroads or milestone in history is what I asked. There is nothing subjective or unecessary about second law. It is the key to understanding our dilemma. Our world view is what is relevant.

Overpopulation. How do we define that? Can't be just raw numbers, since there is plenty of space for everyone. Has to be impact on the environment, then. So, when the question is asked, "What is the most overpopulated country in the world in terms of impact on its environment?" one has to realize it is not China or India, it is the USA. We are less than 5% of the world's population, yet consume 40-50% of all the energy and raw resources and produce 70% of the world's pollution, no matter where you find it. Guess we need to start right here with population control.

And actually, the trends of technology and world view has done more to impact the environment than population increases. Our latest world view and exploitation of cheap oil has brought about the population increase of the last 150 years.

[MonteQuest]

Of course complexity is the issue. The more complex a technology, the more energy transformations that take place.

Can you please justify that statement? My understanding is that the second law of thermodynamics is an inequality which states that entropy of a closed system increases in any given transformation of energy. That doesn't seem to mandate that 10 transformations give a larger net increase in entropy than one transformation, only that each transformation is less than 100% efficient. Also, I'm not clear on why more complex technology necessitates more transformations.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just looking for understanding of your assertion. I have a basic understanding of thermodynamics from my physics and meteorology background, but I don't pretend to be an expert.

That is one way of stating 2nd law, although using "closed" instead of "isolated" can be misleading. I have posted two threads that discuss thermodynamics:
Liebig’s Law: Why there will be a die-off.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html

Technology and Peak oil; Cause and Effect.

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1762.html


And of course 10 energy transfers increases the entropy more than one transformation, unless you are saying that the ten transformations together were more efficient than the one, resulting in an equal or lesser loss of energy. But what did you have to do to increase the efficiencies of those 10 energy transformations? How many energy transfers did that take? The more complex the technology, the more energy transfers that must take place to get it. Once we have it, it may be a timesaver or more efficient, but it gives us only a short-term "utility" to create order at the expense of even greater disorder somewhere else. Sooner or later we must repair it, or replace it as well. There are no free lunches.

For example: To clean up a pile of dirt, you invent a broom and dustpan. Then you improve on the idea and make a vacuum cleaner. Which technology has more energy transformations to achieve the same goal? Obviously the vacuum. In a finite world of energy and resources, which technology is more sustainable? Which leaves more to our descendants? Which is mostly found in the third-world? Which is easier to make and maintain?

The question isn't how we can improve the vaccuum, the question is do we need it at all? Why do we need to save all this time?