Steve, You ask, "What I am curious about, what I want to know what others think about this, is why do we believe that *more* available energy will improve the world? " Your quite right to observe that the popular fixation on energy might conceal a basic error in thinking. There are many sides, but first, though, I think a big part of it is that when you have a failing solution people are first likely to redouble their faith and efforts in it. The end point is realizing that what we need is not to figure out how to go beyond our limits, but how to *comfortably* stay within them. I think my language is improving on it a little. I think that in combination with discovering *that* we need to live within our limits (and redouble our efforts on what's not working) we then also need an idea of *how" The same link in my note to Russell offers a rigorous general approach for responding to limits: <http://www.synapse9.com/drafts/WholeSysEfficiencyLimits.pdf> www.synapse9.com/drafts/WholeSysEfficiencyLimits.pdf
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's interesting in what they say" -- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 12:33 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "free energy" Here's another thought about this... Zero Point Energy, AKA ZPE, has been a somewhat serious undertaking of various scientists. There is also TONS of new-age quackery in this area. I accede to Jan's assertion that ZPE is a serious undertaking of scientists. I even am willing to posit that there may be some "way cool" results that come from this work. The second point Jan makes (TONS of "newage" quackery) fits the Orbo announcements, although it isn't as much "newage" as modern business snake-oil. If what they claim is real, let's just wait for it, because it *should* transform much more than just the bottom line of their company. What I am curious about, what I want to know what others think about this, is why do we believe that *more* available energy will improve the world? Does it not seem possible (even likely if we look closely) that the ills of this planet today are very likely positively correlated with energy consumption? I think the main axis of the trade-space is "global" vs "local" (in space and time) optimizations. What is the collective belief here? Is more accessible energy really going to improve the lot of the planet or merely allow us to pave it over more quickly? - Steve
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
