Denis Frith (DF) wrote and my comments (PP) interspaced

(DF) As usual you put the situation into perspective in relation to the use of
energy. But the operations of the systems of civilization are not only dependent
on the flow of energy.

(PP) IT is true that I see here the situation form the energy perspective point
of view. After all, this is a forum on Energy Resources. Systems of civilization
(those systems contributing to the existence of various human civilizations)
obviously depend on many factors and not only energy. But probably you have to
concede that (availability of) energy is a fundamental requisite for the
civilizations to exist as such and to have a potential to harm and exhaust the
natural resources, specially the irreplaceable ones.

(DF) There is also the invariable production of waste material and the
devastation of the terrestrial and marine ecosystems. I advocate including all
these issues under consuming irreplaceable natural material capital (INMR).
There is the danger that recognition of the energy problem only will result in
the installation of renewable energy systems, like wind farms, while what is
happening to the marine eco system is largely ignored. So is the question of
over population. Widespread recognition of the holistic nature of what
civilization has done to its life support system is more likely to lead to sound
mitigation measures. Our civilization is into its senescence because of a range
of exuberant use of INMR, including sources of energy.

(PP) OF course, there are also many other factors, as mentioned before. But
probably you should also concede that without all these energy availability at
our (civilization) disposal, we will not be able to produce as much waste
material and the devastation of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. When the only
available energy to humans was that of the sun and related biomass (i.e. hunter
gatherers period), there was no any apparent problem of any waste material or
devastation.

I am also fighting with you in the (in my opinion) wrong belief, that renewable
systems will solve the problem of natural resources devastation. This is
certainly an extended belief, which I believe I have never failed to realize.
The problem is not as much as focusing on energy resources in a web named Energy
Resources and thus failing to ignore all other problems.

The problem is rather in ignoring that if we continue to grow in energy
consumption, there is no cut in overpopulation that is going to solve the
exhaustion of what you call irreplaceable natural resources. As I have mentioned
many times, today 80% of the irreplaceable material resources is being carried
out by a tiny fraction of 20% of the world population, which has a capitalistic
charter to continue growing limitless, both in per capita and in global
consumption.

Should we eliminate the 80% of the mentioned world population, still 80% of the
irreplaceable natural resources will be consumed and with a 3% annual cumulative
growth in 10 or 20 more years the privileged 20% will be consuming the same
amount of energy the 100% consumes today and will be destroying the natural
resources as today.

The exponential NATURAL pattern in human (and live beings) reproduction has not
harmed the natural resources since we were amoebas, some 3,5 billion years ago;
had not harmed the environment since we were Australopithecus, some two millions
ago.

What is the big differential, then, what made the most significant difference,
to have spoiled Nature as it is spoiled today, human (or living beings) NATURAL
exponential reproduction rates or the ability to capture energy as a pre
requisite and then handling several orders of magnitude human force
multiplicative machines to destroy the environment supporting us?

Of course, we all should have an holistic view, not only an energy narrow minded
point of view, even in this forum, but having clear first where are the horses
and where is the kart.

Having clear that there will be no copper, lead, zinc, mercury, coal, uranium or
any of the irreplaceable natural resources, generally coming from the
lithosphere, if there were no flows of energy interrelated to multiplicative
machines to scratch and destroy and peel forests, build dams in river basins,
pollute the cultivated lands to this extent, seize and deviate fresh water from
natural streams, pour billions of tons of smoke into the air, extinct one third
of animal and vegetal species and alike also in the biosphere, with the help of
this unique fuels taken from the lithosphere and that devastating way of living
we so proudly still call "civilization". At least, it did not happen while we
were Australopithecus for two million years.

(DF)

Eric gives the appearance of a sound attitude with respect to tackling the
problems that the growth of civilization have created. However, it is an
anthropocentric view. It does not take into account the stark reality natural
forces always control what happens. The reality is that the best we can do is
use technology wisely to remedy some of the mistakes that have been made. There
are no solutions to the devastation of our life support system.

(PP) That is a contradiction in termini (contradictory in terms). You are
accusing Eric of having an anthropocentric view and stress that is not taking
"into account the stark reality natural forces always control what happens". And
then, you claim that the best we can do is to use technology wisely (is not that
"anthropocentric"?). If natural forces have the ultimate and definitive course
of action (predetermination?), why to bother on, or suggest a determined human
action?. However, in my opinion, the position of Eric is quite sound when he
mentions:

QUOTE
Global GNP last year was about 55T USD. That number is increasing.. Over the
next 10 years, global GNP should total at least 600T USD. If just 1% of that
600T were allocated to clean up of our Messes, that would be 60T USD. Estimated
costs to clean up human made CO2 a few years ago was placed at 4.5T.
UNQUOTE

Even this is given in economic terms, if we have a minimum relation between
economic activity and nature transformation, the waste material and the
devastation of the terrestrial and marine ecosystems we have produced with 600T
USD in the last 10 years, would need, according to the Thermodynamic laws (I
still believe, with Einstein, that these are the most fundamental laws of the
physics, even I do acknowledge that there are other factors beside energy), much
more than 600T USD of repairing activities to repair that damage.

That is why, when somebody mentions that we, the Westerners, are going to help
to "develop" the Third World with aid programs or NGO's and alike, I use to warn
thirdworlders to beware of such helping pickpockets. The best thing First World
countries could do with Third World countries, is let them alone, to break any
ties with them, to forget about them, to stop exploiting them under the cover of
"legal transactions" "free trade", "sinergies" and other similar lies. For the
same token, the best thing we could do to Nature is to have a big, big siesta
(STOP OUR HUMAN MODERN ACTIVITIES) and let Nature (you are right in this sense)
to finally take back control of the situation.

Finally, I am very much in line with Einstein, when he said "We can not solve
problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." And
it is clear that something went wrong, specially since we developed machines
(technology) and started massive exploitation of cumulated fuel resources from
the lithosphere. We should not expect that using technology "wisely" we are
going to solve anything. Better use our brain to change the paradigm. That way
of living is over, whether we like it or not.

Pedro from Madrid


--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:
>
> TomR
> Your comment about my lack of understanding of the impact of the laws of
thermodynamics just shows your naivity. The laws of thermodynamics are only some
of the natural laws that apply to all operations in nature and to the operations
of the systems of civilization. Our science has not managed to describe all the
self-regulating and self-organizing natural laws that have evolved. Our limited
understanding has led to some gross mistakes. You refer again to Systems Ecology
without explaining what contribution it makes to this understanding. This
focusing on energy alone is like a person considering his/her energy and taking
bodily health for granted. You accuse me of taking only a narrow slice of things
when I have repeatedly said we should have a holistic view. All your comments
show is that you are not prepared to think through the arguments I put forward
because they are contrary to your mindset. I know the understanding I put
forward is at variance with the common view. After all, how many people
understand that every materialistic operation in nature and in the systems of
civilization are governed by natural laws, many of which we are unaware.
However, it is the stark reality. I had expected that I could promote this
understanding on energyresources. It seems that I am wrong!