Objectives of the ELAM (Earth’s Lodgers’ Activity Management) movement. by Denis Arthur Frith

Denis,

I'm glad the delay let me get to your essay before scoring closed. I agree entirely with your analysis and you described the argument well. What I've been thinking deeply about in recent years is implementation. Do you think that just; "A Cultural Revolution fostered by the ELAM movement" will happen, or counter the economic forces that drive our actions? And even if we do, what do we actually 'switch' to?

I champion renewable energy resources and was recently Architect for the larges UK wind farm (Thames estuary) but in terms of environmental 'costs in use' even that is small meat. It takes massive energy to construct, more to maintain, lifetime is limited, and it takes more energy to remove. Photovoltaic science is improving but only gradually.

I determined we need a quantum leap in understanding nature. We can then bring in technology that doesn't ravish the planet. I suggest that's treating the fundamental cause rather than the symptoms. Don't you get the feeling that many essays here consider peripherals, symptoms or semantics. Almost none get at the nub, which is about fundamental physics', which is 'nature'.

Of course the problem is poor vision. My own essay may hit the very crux of our confusion about nature, allowing unification, which will lead to far better use of solar and other renewables. But Scientists are so embedded with old thinking the can't even SEE it! (non scientist's of curse don't see it either. So I'm now a little distraught. Even with good answers available our short sightedness abides.

Sorry to rant a bit but I think you'll understand my frustration. You epitomize it in part with;"people are misusing their free will because of lack of understanding of the long term consequences" Admittedly a few others also have seen the value, but not enough to count. Your essay paints the picture well. Full marks for that, and I hope you keep up the good work. Mine is allegorical, showing how better thinking finds a real and comprehendable solution to the wierd nonsense of the last 100 years (see the short analysis in my last few blog posts).

Best of luck getting in the final group

Peter

Hi Denis,

Your essay made a very important point. "The accent to date has been on the benefits of technological innovations without taking into account the irrevocable ecological costs."

Without taking away from that true conclusion there are hints of change in technologies like Wikipedia.

"Improved understanding will encourage altruism and pride in contributing to a society making best possible use of the remaining natural resources." That is your sentence and I like it.

Don Limuti

John

You highlight some of the deficiencies in the financial system and propose measures to counter these deficiencies. However, the current financial system does not take into account the divestment of natural material wealth. Society is not paying for the usage of oil and numerous other material resources. Society is not paying fully for the vast amount of material waste produced by the operation of technological systems. Adapting to the impact of climate change is only one of the deleterious impacts of technology that society is having to deal with now and in the future. Society is not yet paying fully for the devastation of biodiversity and species extinctions but these are items that will have to be included in future budgets. Ironically, society has used technology to construct the infrastructure (cities, roads, bridges, airports, etc.)that provides the services that society has become so dependent on. But this infrastructure is irrevocably aging. Organizing financial operations to pay for the operation and maintenance of this infrastructure will become harder as the availability of the necessary energy and materials declines.

How will even an improved financial system cope with the inevitable problem of coping with stark reality. That is one of the challenges for ELAM that I envision in my essay.

Regards

Denis

Hello Denis

Life is an existence proof. If life can do something, we can hope that technology can do it too. Life has existed on Earth for a long time. Your ideas are one way that technological civilization might do so also. However, there are other possibilities that score better on a utilitarian scale.

For example, Lewis [1] estimates that there is enough material in the asteroid belt to build habitats for 10,000,000,000,000,000 people. (10,000 x 1 trillion) - - probably an overestimate. If we assume that every human life has its share of good, that is a lot of utility. Meltzer et al [2] shows a possible method for construction of these habitats. Armstrong and Sandberg [3] show a possible method for settling, not only the asteroid belt or even the galaxy, but thousands of galaxies. Anderberg's essay in this contest [4] suggests a method that might result in even higher utility.

These all are forms of singularity and require exponential growth. Exponential growth sometimes hits limits. Nevertheless, even if we assign these a fairly low probability, they still have a humongous expected value (probability times value). That suggests that they are worth at least some attempt to make them happen. I suggest that even a future requiring drastic cutbacks should have some hope and some R&D to support that hope.

[1] John Lewis, Mining the Sky: Untold Riches from the Asteroids, Comets, and Planets, Perseus Publishing, 1997, pg. 194.

[2] Philip Metzer et al, "Affordable, Rapid Bootstrapping of Space Industry and Solar System Civilization," Journal of Aerospace Engineering, April 2012.

[3] Stuart Armstrong & Anders Sandberg, "Eternity in six hours: Intergalactic spreading of intelligent life and sharpening the Fermi paradox," Acta Astronautica, Aug-Sept 2013.

[4] Tommy Anderberg, A Future Brighter than 100 Trillion Suns, FQXi essay contest.

Science fiction sometimes works.

Consider portfolio strategy. If you have good reason to think the market is going down, you could make money by shorting stocks. However, if your portfolio has nothing but shorts, scheduled to mature at the same time, you are putting all your eggs in one basket and are quite likely to be wiped out. You are right about resource limitations. However, it seems wise not to sell technology totally short. Sometimes it comes up with ways to conserve resources, or to make resources out of things that were not resources before.

Hello Denis

Life consists of lots of molecular machines inside of a cell. There are machines that generate energy, machines that pump things through cell walls, and so forth. If we had designed it, we would call it nanotech. Indeed one of the paths to nanotech is to use the machinery of DNA and RNA to make our own versions. We can already manufacture DNA to order.

You say "Technology always irreversibly uses natural resources." It that true of the "technology" inside of a cell?

I quote from Lance McGill's paper in this contest: "... one issue I have dealt with over the course of many articles has been the concept of "using up resources." While on the surface, this seems to be a logical train of thought, it lies very firmly in the assumption that any given resource once used can never be reused. While there are many examples of such one-way transformations of resources in our current reality, it seems unlikely that once we have acquired the ability to manipulate matter at the atomic level at will that any given resource will remain 'scarce'. In truth, the overwhelming majority of our 'used resources' lying dormant in garbage dumps will most likely become the source of vast amounts of recycled resources. "

I am not claiming that this will absolutely become true, but can you be sure that it absolutely will not? Life is an existence proof that total recycling is possible.

1) What are those sound physical reasons?

2) How does biology, which is an assembly of physical material, get around those reasons? Or does it?

James

The sound physical reasons are:

1 energy flow is irreversible

2 energy flow does positive work on systems made of materials but forms of friction does negative work at the same time

3 friction transforms kinetic energy to thermal energy that is dissipated

4 friction also transforms a small amount of material to waste

These principles apply to both biological and technological systems.Birds would not be able fly if it were not for friction. The purpose of the heart is to overcome friction in arteries and veins.

Various forms of recycling (including water, carbon dioxide - carbohydrates)take place naturally in the operation of biological systems. This is a sustainable process that has been under way for eons.

Some recycling of materials used in technological systems is worthwhile (aluminum) by using an aging (due to friction)system made of materials but this is an unsustainable process.

Denis

It may well be that there will be a heat death of the universe, the expansion of the universe seems to be putting part of it beyond our reach, technology as practiced today is unsustainable, and it will be difficult to reach the stars, although perhaps not impossible. On the other hand, these limits do not preclude some amazing singularities. See my essay for a couple of more or less plausible examples. See Anderberg's essay for some even bigger examples. I am not predicting that they absolutely will occur, indeed I say that their probability is low. Referencing my essay is no longer a solicitation for a vote, since the voting is closed. On the gripping hand, the routes around these and more mundane limits may not work, so it may be prudent to prepare to limit growth. I see this as your legitimate argument. If you said it that way rather than asserting that a flying machine is impossible, it would be hard to disagree on fundamental grounds. Is there more to your argument that I have missed? My point is that, since more is possible, a prudent portfolio of initiatives that might include major cutbacks would also include at least some small percent of initiatives that might result in a brighter future.

I can see why an effort to limit growth would want to limit hope too, since hope might justify imprudent reluctance to embrace limits. Nevertheless, truth has value. It seems inappropriate to impose limits based on arguments which are not true when true reasons are available. Your statement that technology is inherently unsustainable is true only because of limits that are billions of years in the future, limits that could in the best case support expansion by many orders of magnitude, and that is not the truth that you imply.

James

Technological systems are not sustainable for physical reasons that have always operated. That is truth. It is not based on limits that will apply in the future.

You discuss decisions made by people in your essay without any reference to the irreversible impact of natural forces that have always determined what happens in materialistic operations - and always will. Your comment on Anderberg's space proposal and comments in your essay show the common lack of understanding of these fundamental physical principles.

You certainly did miss or misinterpret my argument.I did not say that a flying machine is impossible. I commented on the role of friction in enabling flight. That is why airliners cannot fly in space - common knowledge of the consequences of fundamental physical principles. You claim more is possible. I challenge you to name any technological system that has not irreversibly used up natural material resources, produces irrevocable material waste and damaged the environment in its limited lifetime. I am well aware of the positives of technology: the infrastructure, goods and services that benefits society. But the negatives, the eco costs and the unsustainable nature of technology should also be taken into account.

Thank you for your comments as they provide insight into how I present my arguments on an issue that most people do not understand as it is not included in science education.

Denis