🚀 go-pugleaf

In article M71@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com, wreck@fmsrl7.srl.ford.com (R. Cage) writes:
>In <l3g01aINNsjh@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> jdr@starflight.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>>Unfortunately, much of the technological optimism held by persons who
>>share your views often depends, in the final analysis, on the violation
>>of simple, well-established laws like the three laws of thermodynamics,
>>when properly applied to the complex systems of which we are a part. The
>>only reasons why this is not obvious to more people is precisely because
>>those systems are so complex and the processes so slow.
>
>If you have (1) read what has gone by in sci.environment about
>the entropy-cost of resource extraction (it goes up as the
>*negative logarithm* of the concentration, ie. very, very slowly),
>and (2) think that "complexity" re-defines physical law,
>>you are truly clueless.

Complexity does not re-define physical law, but does affect the ability
of human beings to apply it to situations about which they have to make
decisions. The key qualifying phrase on "complex systems" in the above
quoted paragraph is "of which we are a part". "We" is human beings in
out present state of evolution. Not abstract heat engines. Not players in
a game with perfect information and unlimited processing power. Not angels,
and, more to the point, not all highly-skilled professionals equipped with
an abundance of high-tech capital.

Any analysis must begin with an examination of the complete technical
political economy of humanity at its present state and carry it forward
into a possible future consistent with physical contraints that will
operate on it in a way that is viable at each step along the way and
that avoids the pitfalls that have brought down previous civilizations
and that may bring down ours.

Keep in mind that although we have accumulated a great deal of advanced
capital equipment, the principle operating units of the economy are and
will for some time remain human beings -- who are adapted by evolution
not for life in a spaceship but for life hunting and gathering in a
wilderness. Under the circumstances, we must find it remarkable that
they function in the world they have created for themselves as well as
they do.

In an economy of human beings at various stages of development (and
they will always be at varying stages of development unless and until
we re-engineer them), there are more costs involved in resource
extraction, use, disposal, and recovery than the simple processes of
entropic reversal. Many of them are discussed in terms of
"externalities", which are costs imposed on those not party to the
explicit transaction, and of "recapture", which affects the
profitablity of transactions whose benefits are diffuse.

In fact, what we have is a system with many, many entropic sinks
studded throughout, like gravel in machinery. We can, in principle,
eventually get the gravel out and make the machinery work like it is
possible for it to work. But that is not necessarily going to happen in
a prevailing order of laissez-faire and in the absence of intelligent
planning with a long-term view. And the result may not resemble the
life-style with which we have become accustomed. Nor may the changes
that must occur do so at a pace with which most of us will be
comfortable in the absence of hard thinking that is prepared to
accelerate acceptance of those changes.

What all this translates into is that through much of the journey
that lies ahead, even small increases in resource costs are likely 
to be critical to whether the world economy, in whole or in part,
remains healthy and supportive of the next steps that must be taken,
or falters and brings on social and political disorder great enough
to precipitate collapse. Our present recession should remind us that
we are finely balanced between growth and decline, and that small
things can make large differences in how well we proceed.

On the point of negative logarithmic extraction costs, let it be noted
that in the worst case of recovering materials in a concentration of
10^-9 the cost factor is about 20 times. It is argued that not very
many critical resources are that scarce, but it should also be recog-
nized that the world economy might not be able to cope with increases
by even a factor of 5, and that even increases by a factor of 2 for
some resources can bring about massive business failures, unemployment,
misery, and disorder. Not all of these resources are chemical elements.
Some are repositories of low entropy that cannot readily be replaced
at a cost that many human beings are prepared to pay.

Such increases might be all right for a small fraction of the world
population who can command the use of the capital-intensive processes
needed to do so, but what does the subsistence farmer do whose critical
resource is the topsoil that just washed into the ocean? How much is it
going to cost per pound to recover that resource, and how is he going
to pay for it when his labor is only worth $200 per year and it is all
he can do to make it through the day, much less pay the additional
costs of resource conservation or recovery, or the costs of diverting
scarce capital to long-term growth, or the acquisition of skills not
immediately usable?

Somewhere between that subsistence farmer and a Wall Street banker or
a high-paid engineer lie most of the human beings which are the subject
of my concern, and which should be the concern of us all, because if it
gets too bad for them, it won't be safe for anybody.

Yes, if you scatter critical materials over the countryside, you can
recover them again with enough energy, but what happens to the country-
side and to the other life-forms, including perhaps some human beings,
who make that countryside their habitat? What happens when the environ-
ment carries an increasing load of discarded materials, many of which
are toxic? Do we want to cover the planet with a slum, or make it look
like the surface of the moon?

>that your argument applies equally to the existence of the
>biosphere as a sustainable system as to the existence of a
>technological society.  The biosphere has been around, and
>has built itself into ever-more complicated and organized
>forms, for hundreds of millions of years, and it shows no
>signs of stopping of its own accord.  This completely and
>totally debunks your theory of degeneration.

The terrestrial biosphere is sustained not only by sunlight but by
tectonic processes that transport critical nutrients to high ground,
which biological processes then extract and use, and in so doing,
accelerate their migration down to ocean depths. Without that nutrient
gradient, which is sustained by radioactive decay in the planetary
core, and which operates with a cycle of about 600 million years, the
energy gradient of sunlight alone would not be sufficient. Indeed,
without it the entire surface of the earth would be covered by water to
a depth that would not permit the kinds of biological abundance and
diversity the planet now harbors, but even if that did not happen,
and biological processes tried to greatly accelerate their nutrient
extraction rates, they would become self-extinguishing and the
planet would become a desert.

There is, of course, sufficient solar energy for life-forms to
recover those nutrients from the ocean depths, but so far only one
has developed with some members capable of doing so profitably, and
not in a way that is life-sustaining for all of its members or for
the rest of the life-forms on the planet.

Now it may be suggested that we could, in principle, take advantage
of biological processes to recover critical materials lost to the
environment. We could re-engineer most of the species in the biosphere
to cooperate in extracting and concentrating those materials and
delivering them to us in conveniently harvestable forms. We might have
a bush that yields cobalt-rich berries, or a tree with platinum-rich
roots. We might have predators at the tops of food chains that concen-
trate needed elements in specialized organs and even deliver themselves
to collection points to excrete the elements as high-grade nodules.

It might also be suggested that even if we didn't re-engineer the
species in the natural biosphere to recover such elements, we might do
so to clean up the environment and protect themselves and each other
from toxins.

Re-engineer most of the species in the entire biosphere? What would that
do to them? It could hardly be energetically profitable to them to thus
serve our needs, so we would have to continually intervene to counter
their natural tendency to revert to natural patterns. We would be making
domestic species out of them all. What kind of biosphere is that? Is
that what we want? Does it even make sense for us to try, when better
alternatives may be available.

But natural life-forms also provide lessons in the design and operation
of sustainable self-organizing systems that are applicable to our
human predicament. Many advocates of business-as-usual would say that
we are already on a path of viability that resembles the paths
taken by natural bioforms. The point of my analysis is that our present
course rather resembles one of the many biological experiments that
didn't make it, and advocates the application of intelligence to find
a viable path by some more efficient process than trial-and-error,
especially since the costs of error are potentially so high.

Why are there no lifeforms without skins of some kind, or lifeforms that
remain spread out over the landscape instead of being fairly compact,
with minimal surface areas? Such designs are, in principle, energetically
possible. But they don't happen. They don't happen because such designs
won't work. Not in the real world.

Allow the physical principles we have been discussing to affect design
in intelligent ways, and we wind up with -- sealed, compact cities.
We don't just scrape up any piece of ground for its materials, use them,
and then dump the ground again, because it makes no sense not to simply
internalize that piece of ground into the intelligently-managed life-
support system I propose we build, and dump it not onto the natural
countryside but into a vat or a wherehouse inside the city.

In the final analysis, we do not disagree on the physics, but only on
its implications for planning the conduct of human affairs. My point is
that we don't get the kinds of life-support systems that the physics
permit and dictate by only a series of small, short-term, unplanned and
uncoordinated investments of capital or without making some funda-
mental structural changes in the conduct of human affairs away from the
present path of least resistance. And I foresee that if we can get
through the difficult times ahead we will wind up not with sprawl but
with cities designed like starships, because those are the only designs
that make sense from many points of view.

I also hope that out of all this some substantial part of the natural
ecosystem survives, because the kinds of things we are ultimately going
to have to do for humanity if done sooner and intelligently can also save
our fellow lifeforms. It would be a shame not to do so.

---

jdr@starflight.corp.sun.com, starflt@uunet.uu.net
Jon Roland
Starflight Corporation, 1755 E Bayshore Rd #9A,
Redwood City, CA 94063-4142, 415/361-8141