“Just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they are not after you!”
Joseph Heller, Catch 22
Joseph Heller’s joke has a lot to tell us about sustainability and the illusion of human choice in matters of physical properties and principles.
Debates on issues like climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation and species loss have increasingly become polarised in recent years. Complex, global subjects have often been reduced to worryingly simple, almost childlike “he said, she said” logic.
I recently came across an example of the seemingly eternal faux-binary argument around population and resources.
In response to a piece on a long term investment collaboration and the likelihood that observable trends in population and urbanisation would exert increased pressures upon urban systems, the following (extensively paraphrased for anonymity and comic effect) response was made:
“This is all old news and just another example of muddle-headed doom mongering. People have been saying this for centuries and yet civilisation has never run out of anything. Why should today will be any different? If you don’t believe me look at historical precedent. Malthus was wrong and his mistakes still prevent most of us [I really mean most of you] from thinking clearly”.
Now, whether you believe the specific statements “civilisation never ran out of anything” or the support the general message of “the concept of limits to growth is a zombie argument” there remain some fundamental logical problems in this line of thinking.
A closed system has limits
“We haven’t run out of anything so we will never run out of anything” – this doesn’t make any sense in a closed a system (like the Earth) – you cannot have increasing consumption of anything in perpetuity. For instance, if you have an exponential rise in the consumption of a given resource, say indium, then in time, given the rapid scale increases inherent in exponential growth, it will run out. Even if the whole planet were made of indium, unchecked exponential consumption would still exhaust the supply in the fullness of time.
This fact is often conveniently ignored by some economists and market fundamentalists who mistake functional supply/ substitutable utility with absolute supply. It is quite possible that a given resource may become too expensive to deploy in the products and technologies originally envisaged and therefore an alternative with equivalent utility can be found and used. But this ability to chop and change between substitutable inputs, whilst vital, does not invalidate the point that the Earth exists within physical parameters.
Past performance does not necessarily predict future results
“…if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
Though open to energy, the earth is a system substantially closed to matter. New matter does arrive, in the form of comet and asteroid strikes, but civilisation is really rather incompatible with the new delivery of extra planetary material.
The “its all going to be fine because your prediction last time was inaccurate” argument also runs into the problem presented by the laws of thermodynamics, the defining framework for physical existence. Stated (very) informally by C.P. Snow, these laws apply to everything and everyone:
Zeroth: “You must play the game.”
First: “You can’t win.”
Second: “You can’t break even.”
Third: “You can’t quit the game.”
How can it be coherent or logical to dismiss concerns about the relationship between consumption and limits to growth in light of the fact that these laws frame all activity?
We can’t simply wish these frameworks for physical existence away because previous examples invoking the relationship between activity and impact have either oversimplified the complexity of interactions, ignored the impact of technology and innovation or have simply picked the wrong date.
Betting on the wrong date doesn’t make the basis of the argument wrong, it just makes the proponent wrong on an aspect of their prediction.
Just because it hasn’t happened yet, it doesn’t mean it will not
As noted above, those optimists wishing to derail the “doom mongers” quote Malthus and (misquote) the Club of Rome’s findings and conclusions and say: “they were wrong, they ignored technology, innovation and human ingenuity”.
The capacity of such things to change the so called immutable relationships between consumption and scale are many and varied and a major source of hope for those of us wishing for as yet undiscovered ways to deliver continuing quality of life for ourselves, our species and our planet. However innovation, technology and ingenuity all take place within the framework of the laws of physical reality and are subject to them.
Unless we one day miraculously discover that these so far absolute laws can be subverted, or that they exist within a larger, higher set of rules, we should design our systems of value, consumption and production to be able to work inside and alongside the way that physical reality functions. Not flout our contravention of these truths based upon the flimsy premise that just because something hasn’t happened yet, that it never will.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
Richard P. Feynman
Binary arguments are So last millennium
Those of us seeking to sustain and grow the quality of all life within the limits of the Earth’s system are just as enthusiastic about human innovation and ingenuity as those who decry environmentalists as doom mongers. Many of us also hope that technologies capable of addressing global challenges might yet be developed or deployed at the scale required.
It is possible to be both fearful for the current trajectory of humanity and concerned about the misalignment between economics and the laws of thermodynamics whilst also being hopeful for our capacity to evolve as a global species and optimistic that our creativity and ingenuity will help us survive and thrive.
It is quite natural to hold mutually contradictory thoughts in our heads at the same time. It’s called being human.
Conventional economics has managed to “overlook” entropy – widely considered the most fundamental law of physics – for more than a century. The brilliant attempts by Friderick Soddy in the 1930’s and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1906-1994) seem to have been forgotten, or haven’t generated enough disciples to at least create a school of thought. I wish that Joss’s call will end up creating a breakthrough in economics that brings finally this field into the 21st century…I warmly wish Joss a lot of success in this line of thought.
Dear Bernard,
Thank you for your kind and encouraging message. I am not arrogant enough to believe that my thoughts on this issue are more likely to achieve the change we need than the sage and wise contributors that you mention. Nevertheless, I do hope that we might make some small contribution to the case for an alignment between systems of human value and the parameters of physical existence.
Two quotes immediately spring to mind:
“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”
John Maynard Keynes
And:
“In England we have come to rely upon a comfortable time-lag of fifty years or a century intervening between the perception that something ought to be done and a serious attempt to do it.”
H. G Wells
Best regards,
Joss
A big difficulty is also simply to make ideas happen. I can send you some stuff on this.
Joss, I particularly like the Richard Feynman quote (ever the great quipper!) and your concluding point about holding apparently mutually contradictory thoughts at the same time.
What strikes me as an interesting question is *why* entropy has remained so firmly outside of mainstream economics. Samuelson first called Georgescu-Roegen the economist’s economist – then pushed him quietly to one side once he started to go on about thermodynamics. Why was that?
Mainstream economics is now embracing human behavioural research and calling it Behavioural Economics, leading to a trend of agent-based modelling. What is it about thermodynamics, or the way its insights have been presented, that leaves economists uninterested in its implications? I find this quite fascinating.
Kate, nice reading you!
Actually, we need to learn to live not with apparent paradoxes but with real paradoxes. Yin and yang is precisely about this. When we let it go -and also read some quantum physics for those who understand it, not me!- we know that for example two things can perfectly be at different places and times at the same time. Mind you, the Asians have no problem with this thinking.
Cheers
Dear Kate,
I think the answers to your questions are probably many, varied, complex and not always logical.
However I instinctively believe that there may be three explanations.
1 Because the elision has not presented (as yet) an existential threat to the way that economics works. This always reminds me of what happens when we hear more bad news about ecosystems – if you can still look out the window and see greenery you might feel justified to say “all I hear is bad news and yet it looks fine out there to me”.
2. Because we are easily distracted. It is quite possible to ignore such flaws in the way that systems function because of the need to attend to short term needs. David Hume nailed this when he said:
“Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”
3. Because we tend to favour the familiar, whether it makes sense or not. We are psychologically and neurologically more likely to stick with the status quo even when it might not be in our collective interests.
Sorry for the David Hume quote avalanche, but he also has this pretty spot on:
“It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom.”
…and this is all without invoking the challenge presented by protectionism and narrow self interest…
Certainly creating a relationship between economics and thermodynamics makes logical sense; it would be great to explore how such an evolution might become reality.
Best regards,
Joss
I enjoy and agree with much of what you are saying, Joss. And appreciate your choice of quotes. Especially, this latest round, including:
“David Hume : “It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom.”
Which, I might suggest IS one result of “… the challenge presented by protectionism and narrow self interest…”, self-interest above to be of the individual, or of some form of familial group (any thing from nuclear to tribe to race).
“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.”
John Maynard Keynes
So, since I came to this thread through your contributions to a Sustainability discussion board (the Jo’s population discussion), I ‘d like to share that, while I enjoyed and excelled at Thermo (and fluid dynamics, and early quantum physics) because I can “see” and “feel” them in action, when it came to the theories and equations supporting Entropy, I just couldn’t make them work. And the reason is all around us. I dispute that the Universe in winding down. Rather like Einstein’s extra term that counteracts gravity, I think that there needs to be another term in the equation which accounts for… LifeForce… for lack of a better term. We have not yet accounted for whatever it is that is driving molecular and macro complexity, and evolution, and that soil increases rather than decreases (not “dead dirt” but god rich living soil) (ok, I’m going to leave the typo… just because i find it interesting. And no, I do not “believe” in a angry omnipotent bearded man in a chair in the sky… back to the discussion…), and imagination and desire and energy fields around people, plants and other life forms that are not there when the form is “dead”. Something is going on and because it has been unseen (well, by technology, that is) until the last 70 years or so, it hasn’t been added in to the math. Yet. I have dreams of working on it when I’m old, if no one has gotten around to it yet…
Thanks for your astute contributions!
Linda – thanks for your comments. I have to admit I’m rather perplexed by your comment regarding entropy, I don’t see the contradiction. If it wasn’t for the second law life as we know it ‘wouldn’t work’ – the energy flow predicted by the second law of thermodynamics is exploited by biochemical processes and is essential to life.
Origin of life and its evolution are the result of action of laws of hierarchical thermodynamics.
Criterion of evolution
The approval about the reduction of the entropy of living systems as a result of biological evolution is incorrect. The criterion of evolution of living system is the change (during evolution) of the specific free energy (Gibbs function, G) of this living system. The evolution of living system takes place against the background of flows of energy (e.g., light, energy of physical fields) from the environment. It increases its specific free energy. At the same time, the specific free energy of this living system is decreased as a result of spontaneous processes in this system.
Thus, the total change in the specific free energy of a living system is composed of two parts: 1. The change of free energy due to the inflow of external energy (G1> 0) and 2. The change of free energy due to spontaneous transformations in the system (G2 < 0) . The evolving system constantly adapts to a changing environment. The principle of substance stability contributes to this adaptation.
Thermodynamics of evolution obeys the generalized equation of Gibbs (that is the generalized equation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics)*. Biological evolution and the processes of origin of life are well described by the hierarchical thermodynamics, established on the firm foundation of theory of JW Gibbs. Our theory created without the notion on dissipative structures of I. Prigogine and negentropy of L. Boltzmann and E. Schrodinger.
“Thermodynamics serves as a basis for optimal solutions of the tasks of physiology, which are solved by organisms in the characteristic process of life: evolution, development, homeostasis, and adaptation. It is stated that the quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics of quasi-closed complex systems serves as an impetus of evolution, functions, and activities of all levels of biological systems’ organization. This fact predetermines the use of Gibbs’ methods and leads to a hierarchical thermodynamics in all spheres of physiology. The interaction of structurally related levels and sub-levels of biological systems is determined by the thermodynamic principle of substance stability. Thus, life is accompanied by a thermodynamic optimization of physiological functions of biological systems. Living matter, while functioning and evolving, seeks the minimum of specific Gibbs free energy of structure formation at all levels. The spontaneous search of this minimum takes place with participation of not only spontaneous, but also non-spontaneous processes, initiated by the surrounding environment.”
Works of the author: http://endeav.net/news.html http://gladyshevevolution.wordpress.com/ http://www.mdpi.org/ijms/papers/i7030098.pdf http://ru.scribd.com/doc/87069230/Report-Ok-16-11-2011
Sincerely,
Georgi Gladyshev
Professor of Physical Chemistry
*) The generalized equation of Gibbs (See: http://creatacad.org/?id=57&lng=eng
http://gladyshevevolution.wordpress.com/article/thermodynamic-theory-of-evolution-of-169m15f5ytneq-3/ )
P.S. Lastly, it is important to take into account, from the viewpoint of hierarchical thermodynamics, that anti-aging diets and many drugs can be used for the prophylaxis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and for numerous other illnesses.
http://endeav.net/news/21-nutrition-aging-thermodynamics.html
http://ru.scribd.com/doc/87069230/Report-Ok-16-11-2011
Fascinating article. I believe that a Malthusian catastrophy is very possible and even realistic. Malthus was not wrong. But maybe he was too early? We know that demographic transitions are possible, and that they have already happened in several countries. We also know that a main factor contributing to a demographic transition is ensuring education to all, and in particular higher education to females. The Millennium development goals are possible to achieve. Maybe not by 2015, but maybe by 2025, unless our malthusian catastrophe hasn’t stopped it all by then.
I have a feeling we are in a race for time on a knife’s edge. On one side is an effective demographic transition happening the coming decades. On the other the malthusian disaster. If we use the laws of thermodynamics wisely and applying it in our strategies, we might gain some extra time. The first law of thermodynamics says that the total energy of a system + surroundings is constant. If we see the atmosphere as a system, and the energy flow in the form of insolation and loss of infrared heat as a constant, it is likely that if new technological gains can follow that flow, we should be fairly safe for some time. Solar, wind, tidal and similar forms of energy use, gain in efficiency and are constantly becoming cheaper. Fossil fuels are constantly becoming more expensive, with smaller profit margins.Fossil fuels therefore belong to sunset industries, while ecological energy forms are on the sunrise side.
Fossil fuels are parts of the surroundings to our closed system the atmosphere. When we burn fossil fuels we thus transfer heat from the surroundings to the system in an endothermic process. We decrease the amount of energy in the surroundings and increase it in the atmospheric system. This endothermic process increases entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) and is irreversible. We thus need to get out of the fossil fuel age as soon as possible and ensure a state of energy equilibrium as far as possible. However, arguing along the lines of physics is not very palatable to most people. I think the main argument must be that the political and economic costs of continuing the fossil fuel age are too high. http://ufbutv.com/2014/01/11/make-2014-the-climate-year/ .
Dear Sven,
Thank you again for the kind words. For me the knife edge you mention is all too real, and whilst my hopeful side has optimism, my realist side sees a large number of obstacles to a sustainable world!
I explored the limits to growth, and hope, more extensively in a post last year “9 Billion Reasons for hope…or fear”.
Regarding thermodynamics, we certainly believe that cognisance of the physical laws which govern our existence should be at the heart of economics and policy. However, a key challenge is that the laws of thermodynamics get pretty complicated quickly, and it can be difficult to set a simple “target” for how we align with them. For instance, as energy is a fundamental requirement for any sort of life, a simple equilibrium wouldn’t be that valuable, especially if we had aspirations for increasing the quality and quantity of life on this planet, whether human or otherwise.
Mars has a pretty stable energy equilibrium, but it’s not a particularly welcoming place to live!
For us, it is the quality of energy that counts, not the amount that we “use”. We have sought to use the 2nd Law of thermodynamics to tell us something about this quality through an idea we produced called “Entropic Valuation”. This uses an input-output approach to look at the lifetime energetic efficiency of solar derived energy sources (fossil, solar, biomass etc.). Using this, we find that oil, for instance, is 100,000 times less efficient as a carrier of incoming solar energy than Solar PV with Li-ion storage!
It is therefore “thermodynamic optimisation” that I believe we should aspire to with our technologies, making the best and safest use of energy in our dynamic system.
Alongside, we must develop technologies and production approaches that innately add to the quality and quantity of life on the planet – we call these “Rejuvenative Technologies”.
Best regards,
Joss