Comments on Energy and Science

I'm am so happy to learn of your group and your efforts to gain vision for our future..... IN the article it mentioned that society would be powered by solar...I have recently come across a web site and read a book about Mr. DePalma who developed the N-machine ....free energy which has so many potentials....He is now in India with about 12 other scientists from around the world, working on this...and it is well worth looking into to heighten the vision...! I definitely want to hear more about your work and visions of the future....! I have an avid interest in earthship homes, and any alternative housing and materials and adaptations....

Thank you so much. Vicky

_____

This is full of good ideas. I have one minor quibble. See below.

From Importance of Vision, Rachels # 727: "For centuries the worldview of mechanistic physics dominated Western society. Within this worldview, each action has an equal and opposite reaction, and only by studying systems at smaller and smaller scales, can we come to fully understand these reactions. As more and more people come to understand the inherent complexity of ecosystems and human systems, we will come to realize that results cannot always be predicted, and that irreducible uncertainty dominates the provision of life support services by healthy ecosystems. An ecological worldview of complexity and indeterminacy, inspired by nature as mentor -- holistic, integrated and flexible -- will replace the worldview of mechanical physics."

Physics has acknowledged indeterminacy since the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. However, mechanical physics, including Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, all have powerful explanatory power about the way the world works. They cannot be "replaced," they can only be "augmented." Shame on anyone who thinks that a "holistic integrated" worldview can "replace" the work of Newton, Einstein, and the quantum physicists. We all rely on Newtonian mechanics every day.

Respectfully submitted, Joel

Hi,

I just stumbled across the website, and read the vision statement. I agree with almost all that is said there, in fact I had arrived at almost identical views more or less independently. But I take issue with one statement, to wit:

"An ecological worldview of complexity and indeterminacy, inspired by nature as mentor 'holistic, integrated, and flexible' will replace the worldview of mechanical physics." I have a background in physics and engineering, and I would tend to deconstruct this statement as implying a bias against "hard science," which is unfortunate in that we will need all the understanding that we can muster in the years to come, and a bias against any particular road to understanding could be counterproductive. In particular, I would include the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which are central to understanding ecological economics, under the heading "mechanical physics." But perhaps I have misconstrued...... James Bunch

By the world view of mechanical physics, we meant the basic idea that if we knew the location and velocity of every atom in the universe, we would know the entire history and future of the universe. This of course implies pre-determination, an absence of free will, and the inability to affect the course of the planet. With quantum mechanics and complexity theory, physics and the other hard sciences seemed to have moved way beyond this belief system, but conventional economics is still modeled on mechanical physics, and is woefully inadequate as a result. (e.g. Many economics text books model the economy as a circular flow in which workers produce things for industry, then make a salary which they spend on the things industries produce. There is no need for raw material inputs or waste outputs. Also, the whole discipline is based on math, to the extent that the methodology determines the research path, instead of vice-versa.) Ethical principles are beyond the limits of hard science (though I am familiar with the sociobiologist's arguments on this score, and find them interesting but not convincing-- I was far more persuaded by Paul Ehrlich's arguments in 'Human Natures.'). While there is a statistical explanation of entropy that is supposedly compatible with mechanical physics, it is quite unsatisfying. In fact, it implies that if we reversed the direction of every atom in the universe, we would live in a universe of forever decreasing entropy. This statement and the vision are not meant to be anti-hard science, and I agree with you that we will desperately need all it has to offer. I hope this clarifies the vision statement. We certainly do not wish to imply a bias against hard science. I'll try to re-write the vision to make it more clear there is no biased against hard science.

_____

The developing countries are way ahead of us. In some ways. And they don't have to fight stupid people like Pres. Bush to get started. They know they got problems. Bush and company are trying to bandaid a broken system, and apparently don't realize it's broke beyond repair. Some good ideas, some pipe dreams. Fossil fuels are almost done. We need a new sort of power. Nuclear can be scienced up to be almost none polluting, and renewable. Most folks got their nuclear ideas from tv. They see a mushroom cloud, or a monster from a lagoon, or read a newspaper which doesn't have a science editor.Instead, they work on emotional appeal. Which sells newspapers. Call it the Yellow Press. Remember that?

Keep plugging. joe

Nuclear power does have many impressive attributes, but I have yet to hear of how to make it non-polluting. Perhaps you could explain how on the discussion board? The half life of plutonium is 24,300 years, and it is so toxic that many, many half-lives must pass before plutonium waste ceases to be a concern.

_____

Solar hot water collectors with direct heat gain should also be specifically mentioned. They are very practical in the moderate latitudes and fantastically so farther south. I used one for years. They are unbelievably effective, and even a few hours of sun provides a days worth of water. Not that expensive, either. JF Architectural design everywhere prioritized to proper sites orientation for heating and cooling, both passively and actively, will be very important. Trees and other plantings too will be used as wind breaks and sun shade.

Lawns, even public lawns, require regular mowing, watering and herbicide treatments. Lawns are an outrage and a big waste. Where did this need for lawns come from anyway? Estates grazing sheep on their lawns? What's the matter with a mass of flowers, ground covers allowing for better drainage, cool, inviting spaces. Sodding is what the builders do for lack of willingness to landscape. It may be a long haul in many urban settings. I can't even walk around the block without becoming ill. Between the general air pollution, the herbicides in the yards and the fabric softener scents wafting on the air, I am physically unable to run an errand without a car in my community. (Love to walk and breathe at my brother's place in southern Delaware.)

Pat

_____

I read an article about free energy. The website is www.free-energy.cc. The article talks about fuel-less heat and electricity sources. I would like to see that in the future. I would also like to see wide spread use of Grander Living Water technologies or anything better. Through the use of this technology, a company in Australia saves $300,000 a year in chemicals. I do not have the pamphlet with me at the moment, but what it does is it changes the energy and frequency of water to make it like natural spring water. Scientific studies have backed this up. It is manufactured in Austria.

Many companies and indivuduals find that technologies that do less damage to the environment actually save money.

Regards, Joan

_____

It's good that the, "envisioning process is dynamic, and we have only just begun" because if the U.S. or world follows the IEE Pollyanna approach, a collapse is inevitable and just around the corner. Has IEE no sense of urgency? Are we all but single minded professors residing in cloistered citadels of myopia?

Cars a problem then Ride bikes: problem solved.

Redirect taxes: problem solved.

Light rail: problem solved.

Redistribute income: problem solved.

Redistribute resources (those darn 'ol geologic processes sure get in the way of socially distributing resources!): Problem solved.

Speak to sovereign responsibilities. Not at IEE! Yes, I've read Hawken, Daly, Costanza and find much of their approach full of insights that will/could lead the planet into a sustainable era. If there were ample time and resources (and the will). However, no Super-Giant oil/natural gas field has been found since 1968; U.S. oil production peaked in 1970; we'll be empty within 15 years (now THAT's an economic problem!!). World oil has now peaked or will around 2005. U.S. natural gas has indications that it has peaked and will certainly within 5 - 8 years. Current depletion rates exceed new discoveries. Canada to the rescue? Ha!, it too has peaked. Develop it's oil/gas resources? And create a Lake Ontario for the water wastes! And a massive energy sink to boot.

For lots of good resources on the energy issue, see http://www.dieoff.com

IEE says the U.S. will be using only annual incoming natural based energy systems at 2100. Ok. Do the math: with 1.4 billion U.S. inhabitants, because that's the population region the U.S. is heading pell-mell toward. Nowhere (that I could see) is any discussion of this U.S. demographic juggernaut and nowhere is there an integration of the environment, economics, and population growth. Sorry for my rather direct comments. I get this way when writing --in this case population growth and energy needs for Minnesota. I use California as an example. It delves into the national and global situation as well. California is the preamble to what will soon occur throughout the U.S. I doubt if you knew that Minnesota already has had several brownouts. Remember all those warnings back in the late 1960's and 1970's?

The future has arrived and IEE seems to "envision" it's still 1968. Flash forward: it's 2001. Our populations are huge and there are few resources to provide for even the existing levels. Somehow I doubt that advocating bike riding is a sufficient remedy. For the use of IEE staff and faculty, attached is my version of the Lily Pond Parable. "What me worry?" :)

While most of the IEE group and many in the ESDA network agree with you concerning the problems, the unfortunate truth is that most of the USA much of the rest of the world does not. Many people consider economic growth and its accompanying increase in the rate of resource use essential to human well being. People have been making dire predictions concerning our use of resources since 1968, as you say, yet many problems continue to grow worse. Our goal with this project is to create a vision of a desirable future that people want to attain, instead of always talking about an undesirable future people want to avoid-- i.e. use a carrot instead of a stick. We do not claim that this is the solution, only that it is a necessary part of it. We would like to hear the solutions you propose.

Also, I think the discussion of population growth received relatively little attention precisely because it was a point we all agreed upon.

Cheers, Dell