Hi Frederick,
I see that you did not like my initial responses to your comments. Your further comments are in three instalments. I respond here to all in one go.
It seems that you misunderstood my responses and reacted off the cuff without taking the time to consider the material I suggested you read. That’s fine, anyone is entitled to their own opinions. However, I was not addressing opinions. Instead, in scientific perspective, I was inviting you to possibly review critically what unwarranted assumptions, beliefs and preconceptions you may be holding unconsciously. Humankind is on the brink. We are all on the brink. To extricate ourselves from this dire predicament it is necessary that we all do this hard work of critical enquiry into the appropriateness of the questions we are addressing, so that we do not endlessly repeat the same mistakes. There is no longer any room left for more errors. It’s a difficult thing to do. It requires the courage of humility. This is what science is all about. I have been doing this for over 50 years, like all of my colleagues. I was commenting as a concerned scientist and engineer.
So, to possibly clarify misunderstandings here are some further comments.
When you say, “you deny there is capital added to Earth by sunlight”, please consider, “capital” is an economics notion that has been demonstrated to involve magical thinking and beliefs in myth. It is recent. It emerged as part of the early stages of the industrial revolution, some 270 years ago, and it is in the process of breaking down. Serge Latouche is probably the economist who has produced the most thorough critique of economics and demonstrated its self-referential, mythical character — Serge Latouche, 2005, L’Invention de L’Economie [The Invention of Economics], Albin Michel, Collections Sciences — Sciences Humaines, Paris. So, sunlight is a physical phenomenon that has nothing to do with capital. The scientific way of considering this is in therms of the thermodynamics of complex systems operating far from equilibrium. This involves the fourth principle of thermodynamics, developed by Alfred Lotka and Howard Odum. To understand what I am referring to here, please see the work of Axel Kleidon (Axel Kleidon, 2012, How does the Earth system generate and maintain thermodynamic disequilibrium and what does it imply for the future of the planet? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A, 2012 370, doi: 10.1098/rsta.2011.0316; Axel Kleidon, 2010, Life, hierarchy, and the thermodynamic machinery of planet Earth, Physics of Life Reviews 7, 424–460, www.sciencedirect.com, doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.10.002; Axel Kleidon, 2009, A basic introduction to the thermodynamics of the Earth system far from equilibrium and maximum entropy production, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 1303–1315, doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0310).
“your opininated misinformation…” Let’s please relax and and stay focused on calm dialogue. I invited you to read some of the material I published that address your queries. There is no “misinformmation” there. It is all backed by abundant research by thousands of scientists and engineers. The references to the main works are given.
“worshiping the energy of the sun”. Of course, you may worship anything or anyone that takes your fancy. Science does not worship anything… My concern was not to do a detailed review of what you posted. Instead, it was to flag that your comments to me presented a number of issues. I was gently inviting you to consider them. Amongst others, money matters are extremely complex. They require a solid background in anthropology, sociology, history, and epistemology of the social sciences that most economists and finance people by and large do not have. In consequence they publish a lot of nonsense with consummate self assurance. So, given that we are all on the brink, I was flagging that now is a good time to consider all of this critically, especially as it all contradicts thermodynamics as well as much of the social sciences. The material I refer to is huge. It is up to you consider it or not as you see fit. There is no room in an exchange of comments to cover this body of materials.
“‘One can tell instantly that his scale can’t stack up’ Really? To me it looks the exact opposite.” You seem to miss what I flagged: dualistic versus non-dualistic perspectives. What you are indicating is that you are not familiar with this matter. Yet, it is crucial to not only consider Kardashev’ hypothesis but more importantly the vital challenges humankind can no longer avoid facing. So, here I was pointing out the necessity to shift to non-dualistic thinking. This is a matter that has emerged strongly in recent years among scientists working on global system dynamics (among others). It’s up to you and to each of us to make that shift or not. Simply, by now we do know that for humankind to extricate itself from its predicament, making such a shift has become necessary…
“Monetise that, and the problems are fixed, not just for you but for all people.” If you read attentively what I published, you will notice that this is the matter that I am addressing, so to speak. To do so requires a sound understanding of thermodynamics, i.e., how to harvest and bring to use the solar influx in a way that can scale to the global population in a sustainable manner. Without doing so, there is nothing to “monetise”. Those of us, engineers and scientists with a life long experience in that field have found that none of the existing “renewables” can achieve this. I have conveyed a summary of that matter in:
Thermodynamics, Fossil Fuels and Renewables, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[*] — Part I
Thermodynamics, Fossil Fuels and Renewables, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[*] — Part II
Thermodynamics, Fossil Fuels and Renewables, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[*] — Part III
Thermodynamics, Fossil Fuels and Renewables, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly[*] — Part IV
Monetising energy derived from the solar influx also requires a sound understanding of money matters. Again, those of us who have been working on this for decades have develop a thorough critique of the entire field of economics and finance. Beside Serge Latouche, mentioned earlier, I could list a long string of other researchers. I summarised a number of key pointers in:
Value on the edge of a cliff — when wealth suddenly vanishes without trace — Part I
Value on the edge of a cliff — when wealth suddenly vanishes without trace — Part II
Value on the edge of a cliff — when wealth suddenly vanishes without trace — Part III
OK, it seems that you are not familiar with that field. That’s fine. I am merely suggesting that maybe you could look into it.
“you are trying to blind by science, of course as always for profit, just like the majority of “Green” industrialists…” Instead, in
Repowering the planet, the Intelligent Way — Introduction and Summary
Repowering the planet, the Intelligent Way, Part I — Understand the problem
Repowering the planet, Part II — How to re-open the door to the future, intelligently,
I make abundantly clear that our objectives are to ensure that everybody has access, can be involved and can benefit. I also stress all along and here as well that the point is to make the relevant science accessible in lay language — not to “blind” but to invite everyone to open their eyes, so to speak, about matters that they are not aware of but that have a strong bearing on their future.
So, again, it’s fine by me for you to remain utterly convinced of the merits of your positions, no worries as we say “down under”. My concern is simply to let people know what is presently, demonstrably, at the cutting edge of science concerning what cannot possibly get us out of trouble and what possibly still can. Now, let’s leave this discussion to this, please.
Cheers
Louis
