Neither the Earth nor humans need more energy.
Humans didn't "need" to advance beyond stone age hunter gatherers.
Building a society that consumes massively more energy, on the other hand, will require producing massively more energy.
You still haven't mentioned specific applications that require more energy and why you consider them good. Is it that you just associate more energy with more money and you want to make more money? Why exactly? What do you want more money for?
Quote: livinglava wrote:
What they need to do is use their technological savvy to make do with less energy better.
"High efficiency" is good, but "massive amounts of energy combined with high efficiency" is even better.
You're still not explaining why you think all this 'massive amounts of energy' used highly efficiently is good. You just don't like reusing the same stuff over and over so you want to throw away and recycle stuff into new stuff all the time for some reason?
Producing and consuming more energy is a good thing. We just need to do it sustainably.
I don't think you understand that there is abundance possible while reducing the total amount of energy generated. The only things that require large amounts of energy to produce/consume are heating/cooling and various industrial applications. Consumer electronics are pretty energy-conservative at this point, and refrigeration is getting very efficient because of better insulation to seal off cold longer/better.
Not at all. Increased energy use will make our lives much better.
Energy dissipates as waste heat and waste heat causes entropy, like all energy does. Have you understood what I've explained about natural 'machines,' i.e. trees and plants,' absorbing waste heat and using it to build leaves that reflect the middle wavelengths of sunlight away? Nature has evolved to protect life from excessive energy because life thrives by protecting against entropy, not increasing it.
When you say you want to increase total energy, that means you want to increase total entropy. Entropy is destruction of order into chaos, the order of living cells functioning properly. So you are basically encouraging death and destruction of living cells. You are looking at the short-term kicks that come with increased energy use without thinking about entropy-growth as growing death and destruction, which is what it is.
All energy results in entropy. Reducing per capita energy usage reduces overall entropy and allows nature to restore resources.
It also results in a lower standard of living.[/quote]
Only in a very narrow, subjective way. Standard of living is relative and subjective. What was once considered a high standard of living would be considered poverty today. You have to move beyond narrow, subjective understandings of life-quality and use scientific intelligence to envision good quality of life within a paradigm of decreasing-per-capita-energy-use. Think, for example, in terms of elegantly designed and positioned small indoor spaces that channel cool breeze from surrounding forest shade through as ventilation and climate control. That is a higher standard of living than cranking up a big air-conditioning system, which uses no energy while the forest outside is doing all the work of absorbing latent heat and reflecting away middle wavelengths of sunlight without consuming any industrial power plant energy sources to do so.
Artificial demand has resulted in misconceptions of need. You don't need to wear short sleeves in the winter or long pants and ties when it's hot.
Maybe not. But we choose to do so.[/quote]
It doesn't make sense. The human body generates about 100w of heat, the same as a TV set. The only thing you really need to heat to feel comfortable is your skin. Why would you warm up all the air in a large room instead of just warming up your skin directly by insulating it a little?
People just need to adapt to natural conditions better as they did before the industrial revolution.
We don't need to do that. We can choose to use more energy and increase our standard of living.[/quote]
When everyone insists on using more energy like this, it results in humans being a destructive/entropic species. Humans have the capacity to contribute to nature's capacity to absorb energy and reduce total system entropy, so we should do that instead of destroying our own base for sustainability.
I disagree. I prefer the higher standard of living that comes with greater energy use.
Your preference can't prevent entropy from growing due to people like you refusing to foresee the effects of energy-use patterns.
So then we artificially cool the earth.
I explained why that doesn't work, but you can't seem to grasp how artificial energy always dissipates waste heat. What do you think happens if you fill a house with air-conditioners and run them all at the same time? Do you think the house would keep getting colder if all those machines are running inside where their waste heat is being added to the air they are trying to cool?
Efficiency is good too. But it's no reason to not produce more energy as well.
Efficiency is what enables you to substitute less power-hungry application for more wasteful ones and achieve comparable effects while lowering overall energy generation and thus waste.
Because it would increase our standard of living.[/quote]
What you're saying is similar to saying that printing more money would increase standards of living. Saying that ignores inflation, and you don't seem to see that energy use/waste also causes a kind of inflation.
[quoteDo you want every yard to have its own Niagara Falls?[/quote]
Sure. Why not?[/quote]
Because of weathering and erosion. You're thinking in an aesthetic mindset that pictures things without thinking about the effects they cause. You can't just build a giant waterfall without the waterfall hammering everything it splashes against and washing away the debris. That's what powerful water does. Ever used or seen a pressure washer?
Nature has its place, but we are not going to abandon most of the planet to it.
Nature has a much more significant place than we allow it. Nature produces machines, but we don't fully understand them yet because nano-engineering is still in its infancy. We have marveled at our engineering skills and failed to acknowledge how gross and wasteful our machines are relative to natural machines that have evolved unbelievably complex networks of nano-machinery to accomplish subtle yet incredibly effective tasks, while being permanently sustainable within the planet's natural homeostasis.
What is it about having more energy that appeals to you?
The higher standard of living.[/quote]
What do you consider higher about such a standard of living? What do you think is necessary to have a good life, exactly?
Do you understand entropy?
Well I don't have a PhD in the subject. I know what it is in general however.[/quote]
Is is the progress ordered/organized systems make toward destruction and chaos as energetic processes continue. It is the reason that machines always wear out and break and need repair and replacement the more you use them. It is the reason the water cycle causes weathering and erosion, which gradually demolishes even the tallest mountains and washes their debris downhill into the ocean.
If Earth would only progress in an entropic direction, the mountains and continents would gradually all wash into the oceans and the ocean floor would be a level bed of sedimented debris. For some reason, Earth has the ability to lift up solid matter to form land masses and mountain ranges above sea level, and plants and trees have evolved to lift up nutrients and water from the soil to absorb carbon from the air to shield energy from sunlight so animals in the shade of the forest canopy can survive without having the water baked out of them and their surroundings by direct sunlight.
If you can fully understand the relationship between energy and entropy, you will see that entropy and energy is something you want to minimize, not maximize. Reflecting away energy to protect against dehydration is how living ecosystems on Earth have evolved to survive. We have to accept the duty of towing the line on this basic life-function if we want to survive as a species and keep the planet from gradually degenerating into chaos and ultimately a pile of dead ash and rubble.
I disagree. I think we could find ways to radiate heat away from the planet.
Sure, but to do that you need clear night skies. To have clear night skies, you need the water vapor to precipitate out of them before they condense into fog at night. If the atmosphere is pumped up with artificial heat every day, water vapor is not going to condense as easily and then you can shine all the lights you want out into space to get rid of Earth's energy, but a lot of it will get blocked and reflected back by the mist, which will make the process less efficient and cause energy to be wasted and more waste heat to build up in the atmosphere, thus further intensifying the fog-cycle.
There might be other ways to cool the planet besides giant air conditioners.
You need to think more practically. You like a business person who always thinks there are magical technologies to be discovered to make more money and achieve whatever you want. Learn physics and apply it to exploring all the possible engineering applications you hope are possible. You will start to see patterns in what is actually possible and what is just magical realism.
Although, if giant air conditioners were able to radiate their heat into space, that might work.
Air-conditioners run on electricity. As the electric motors run, they get hot. You can't take that heat and turn it into higher-frequency light because light breaks down into lower frequencies, which is another form of entropy. Infrared light is the wavelength of heat, which has to radiate away from the planet. It is blocked by greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O, which precipitate out of the air under certain conditions. CO2 only precipitates out of the air by being absorbed by trees and plants. It doesn't have a liquid state like water, so it has to get extremely cold to condense into ice.
I've nothing against a few more trees, but abandoning the surface of the planet to massive forests is a nonstarter.
You don't have to abandon anything to trees. You just have to reform architecture so it doesn't prevent healthy soil and trees from surviving between narrow foundations with more vertical height than lateral breadth.
I've nothing against paying attention. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't advance ourselves.
Your concept of 'self-advancement' defies advancement into understanding nano-technology and how biological cells are tiny factories that are useful producers.
Quote: livinglava wrote:
It's not, but the solution is to understand and harness natural living 'machines' that have already proved sustainable throughout the history of the planet. Why would you want to try to do everything with industrial machines and systems that have been evolving for the last couple centuries while ignoring all the incredibly effective machines that have been evolving for billions of years?
Because technology can do so much more.
Quote: livinglava wrote:
You do that by restoring forests and reversing deforestation; and by reversing fossil fuel dissipation by using up fuels at a rate slower than they form and sediment.
How would that help with the water vapor that you were worried about?
Water is absorbed by trees/plants/ecosystems. Watershed absorbs water like a sponge covering the land and allows it to gradually trickle underground. Basically, nature vastly expands the number of shaded crevices where liquid water can resist evaporation into the atmosphere. It is sort of similar to the way a water-cooled motor protects against evaporation of coolant by keeping it locked in the radiator and mixed with anti-freeze chemicals that lower the freeze point and raise the boiling point.