A fascinating counterintuitive truth I was recently introduced to--which sent me into a Google hole to confirm--is that the general American accent of today is closer to the pre-American Revolution British accent than the general, modern British accent.
2. Provide an example of an issue/position on which you've change changed your mind.'
Having grown up in a free market system (capitalism; neoliberal globalization; call it what you will) like everyone currently alive, and having been fortunate enough to win the birth location lottery in a "first world country", I was indoctrinated to believe that the biggest--perhaps the only--motivator for humans on planet Earth is (somehow) the transfer of something we call money. The money production and resulting labor-for-income processes were never supposed to be interesting or understood--simply passively accepted. But in 2009, I was introduced to the concept of a Resource Based Economy.
Even though I was familiar with the concept of a moneyless society because of shows like Star Trek, I had never given serious consideration to the possibility until it was laid out in a cohesive, sensible, but most importantly, entirely feasible manner by Jacque Fresco. Now, I admittedly will never look at money as anything other than a nothing thing. Money is meaningless and the faster we dispense with such a ridiculous concept in the digital age, the faster we can raise the standard of living for every human on the planet. For example, we have the resources, technology, and knowledge to feed, clothe, and house every single human on the planet easily, but choose not to in the name of a system that most claim "works" because, "if they just had the money..."
Paraphrasing Fresco: If you're stuck on an island with gold bars, jewelry, and millions of dollars in cash, but there's no fresh water, no arable land, and no food, you have nothing.
Even though I was familiar with the concept of a moneyless society because of shows like Star Trek, I had never given serious consideration to the possibility until it was laid out in a cohesive, sensible, but most importantly, entirely feasible manner by Jacque Fresco. Now, I admittedly will never look at money as anything other than a nothing thing. Money is meaningless and the faster we dispense with such a ridiculous concept in the digital age, the faster we can raise the standard of living for every human on the planet. For example, we have the resources, technology, and knowledge to feed, clothe, and house every single human on the planet easily, but choose not to in the name of a system that most claim "works" because, "if they just had the money..."
Paraphrasing Fresco: If you're stuck on an island with gold bars, jewelry, and millions of dollars in cash, but there's no fresh water, no arable land, and no food, you have nothing.
3. What is the biggest constraint of the size of the global human population?
Beyond the notions of government, money, social class, global markets, and all the modern conveniences taken for granted in industrialized nations, there is an often-overlooked, natural constraint that exists for all species on any planet in question: carrying capacity. The innovative capacity of the human species is perhaps boundless; however, if the systems by which the species operates on Earth either exceed or outright ignore the carrying capacity of the planet, then all of the electronics, transportation systems, agricultural advances, and niceties of the 21st century can only amount to so many millions of tons of junk...
Taking this a bit further, if those systems fail to raise the standard of living for every human on the planet to an adequate reflection of the technical and intellectual achievements of a supposedly intelligent species (i.e. one that ultimately reduces human and environmental suffering while maintaining a steady-state economy within the carrying capacity of Earth), then it seems to be a squandered potential--arguably a wasted existence.
4. What sources of growth (if any) are potentially infinite? What are the most promising tech advances on the horizon? For the economy? For the environment?
Infinite growth simply cannot occur within finite systems—lest our definitions of infinite and finite risk meaninglessness. For all intents and purposes, Earth can be viewed as such a finite system in that, once the Moon was splashed off some four and a half billion years ago and the planet began cooling, the three major inputs influencing its cosmic progression ever since have been the Sun (which contains over 99.8% of all the mass in the entire solar system), geologic processes leading to biotic processes (from abiogenesis to evolution through natural selection), and extinction-causing impactors (like the one that wiped out much of the reptilian world roughly 65-million years ago). In other words, the resources that are available and usable on the planet generally take so much longer than the average lifespan of humans and require such a vastly different set of conditions to generate that it’s safe to assume once they’re gone, they’re gone. Oil, for example, which was used to accelerate the expansion of the global economy in just over a century, took tens to hundreds of millions of years to form from decaying organic material. So, given the information our species has accumulated in the cosmically negligible amount of time it's been evolving on this planet, the only things of which I can think that even remotely resemble infinite growth are cancer and possibly the Universe itself. Cancer will grow indefinitely given a continuous supply of healthy cells and an environment in which to propagate; but even the Universe will stop growing if it ever reaches absolute zero! Thus, the argument seems to rest on philosophical grounds.
Philosophically, one could argue any number of arbitrary points about infinite growth, such as: Which infinity?—countable infinity or uncountable infinity? Does it matter? Is this a closed system or are there other major inputs aside from the Sun? Can something like intellectual capital—i.e. technical, linguistic, artistic, economic, or any other type of innovation borne of intelligence—be proffered as a realistic means by which humanity could achieve such a thing? Who knows? But, all of those questions will just lead to wasted time unless we move beyond the philosophical and cut to the heart of the issue to ask: Can Earth even sustain any kinds of infinite growth models? Without properly addressing and answering this arguably technical question, the human species risks exceeding the carrying capacity of the environment, which will inevitably cause conflict, territorial disputes, fresh water shortages, and unnecessary suffering. So, by continuing to rely on an economic model that uses scarcity (to maintain and drive up prices) coupled with its dichotomy, infinite growth (to maintain competition), while virtually every crucial life system on the planet is in decline as a direct result, the human species has mixed the ingredients for a disaster recipe—and we’re about to throw it in the oven! There’s still a small window of opportunity to turn the oven off and trash the recipe. But, we’ve waited so long to address this issue, while traipsing all over planet in “business as usual” fashion, that it will take an overhaul of the entire global economy and a concerted effort on behalf of practically every country on Earth over the next twelve years or so in order to remedy even a fraction of the damage we’ve inflicted (and continue inflicting) upon the environment. Infinite growth certainly isn’t the answer.
The latest tech advancements will only amount to so many millions of tons of junk unless they enhance the lives of all humans. If we stopped innovating right now and intelligently used the technology and resources already available, we could feed, clothe, and house every single person on the planet. Can we provide, say, one of absolutely everything ever produced to every single person on the planet? Of course not! And it’s ridiculous to even begin to assume that everyone would desire such a stockpile. (What if I want all of Europe to be my backyard so I can really spread out all of my stuff? Who’s to tell me I’m wrong for it anyway?! See how absurd?) With technology, however, we can realistically address the issue of providing all humans access abundance to the necessities of life while working toward providing wants in an automated, equitable, sustainable manner. This means the economic model in place must be directly related to the resources provided by the environment—a Resource Based Economy. Following the logic, a prudent foundational principle to immediately implement is that the carrying capacity of the Earth cannot be exceeded. To understand what we have, how much of it we have, and where it’s at necessitates a global resource evaluation. Once this happens and a constant-feedback system is in place, we can easily live within this carrying capacity through the intelligent distribution of resources and through the intelligent use of technology. So, what kinds of technology are we working with in 2019?
The amount of technology the human species has developed in the past century alone is mind-boggling. So, sparing an incredibly long list of innovations, I’ll simply present what I feel are the ‘Top 6 Technologies We Can Use Now to Transition to a Resource Based Global Economy’:
- Renewable Energy
Energy is the cornerstone of modern society. But the most pervasive forms of energy production involve the burning of fossil fuels—a process that releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere—while failing to create carbon sinks to pull that material back out. Fossil fuels have such a high energy density, it’s easy to see how, once discovered, coal, gasoline, and natural gas quickly became the foundation upon which the massive global energy sector still reigning today was built. However, combining sources, such as solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear, with 21st century battery and capacitor storage systems, there is more than enough available energy to cover the roughly 16 terawatts humans use each year.
- Desalination Plants
Once humanity’s energy needs are met and possibly exceeded, a focus on desalination techniques could soon mean freshwater shortages never happen again. While there are several different ways to achieve this end, each requires a large amount of energy (see 1 above). Free access to fresh, clean water is foundational to a healthy life. There is no excuse for living in the richest, most technologically advanced society to have ever walked the Earth and having almost 10% of the world’s human population with no access to improved water sources and 35% with no access to improved sanitation!
- High-Speed Internet
The internet is perhaps humankind’s greatest achievement; but almost half the world’s population don’t have access to it. If resources are to be accurately and efficiently tracked, monitored, and distributed, there is no other way than through the use of the Internet. No human or group of humans can process the amount of information necessary to allow such a system to effectively function. Networked machines are necessary and automation through open source information can lead to highly advanced monitoring systems that adjust parameters in real time, an efficient transportation grid, streamlined production and distribution systems that have waste reduction built right in, and manufacturing platforms for sharing designs (some of which already exist through websites like www.thingiverse.com):
- Vertical Farms
As a human organism, there is a certain set of bodily requirements that must be fulfilled in order to grow optimally and maintain optimal health: i. Clean, fresh air; ii. Clean, fresh water; iii. Nutritious food; iv. Sunlight; and, v. An enriching physical and social environment that includes close contact with others. The nutritious food requirement can be addressed by either converting old high-rises to vertical farms or building new ones for that purpose. Each floor can be dedicated to a particular crop or mutually-beneficial crops, some of which include bees. Meanwhile, the whole system can be handled in a fully- or at least partially-automated way through the use of sophisticated data tracking systems that monitor and adjust nutrient levels, water schedules, light schedules, & CO2 levels, and can alert the public when harvests are ready the way that advertisements reach us through social media as we scroll through the brain puke. Think of it like a modern supermarket but you just go get what you need and leave; it’ll be there tomorrow! Or, since we already have online ordering and delivery, just a few clicks and fresh produce is en route to your front door!
- High-Speed, Automated Transit
While flying is arguably the most popular form of mass transportation, it still depends upon the use of large amounts of fossil fuels. The goal should be to reduce the use of fossil fuels to a bare minimum. (Let’s honestly acknowledge that until we develop long-lasting alternative lubricants, the use of oil will persist—even with the energy systems outlined above.) This means implementing MagLev rail systems as soon as possible to interconnect all major cities in each country or region with high-speed trains. As of 2017, Japan holds the world title for Fastest MagLev (test) train at over 374 mph! The technology already exists and will only improve as we fully engage with the 21st century.
- Additive Manufacturing
In recent decades, manufacturing has witnessed incredible advancements through the development and use of machine automation. Now, with the advent of Additive Manufacturing (known colloquially as 3D printing), the world is on the brink of the next great fabrication revolution--one that promises a permanent reduction in most waste of resources. Everything from nanotech to entire high rise buildings can be completely revolutionized by prospective applications for this technology. As improvements inevitably arise and adjust to real-time data in a global feedback loop (made possible by the Internet), the future of recycling might one day simply be that it is built right into the system. That’s what nature has in-store for us anyway. As John Ortberg once stated while drawing parallels between the culmination of human existence in the modern world and the game Monopoly: “Now it all goes back in the box.” But, until that happens, our society can do its technical best to eliminate mass production where it has become obsolete, reduce waste to the absolute minimum, and increase the recycling of materials.
Until this point, there has only been a single en passant reference to the concept of money because, quite frankly, I don’t actually consider it a resource. You can’t eat money. You can’t stuff it into your gas tank and expect it to run your car. Money is a nothing thing (only about 3% exists as physical currency) and with the way Fractional Reserve Banking functions, the debt generated through the money-creation process itself is mathematically impossible to pay off. (Don’t take my word for it, though. Click the last link I’ve included below to read Modern Money Mechanics and learn the process. It’s actually pretty simple.) Therefore, it’s a pointless exercise to perpetuate such an outmoded concept just because we’ve convinced ourselves that money exchange, bartering, or some other form of labor-for-income is required to find purpose or fulfillment in life. It’s not--that’s a lie. Money can’t create real value, purpose, or fulfillment if the moment it’s produced it’s worth less than nothing. (That is, when a dollar is produced, it is “worth” one dollar of debt owed to the Federal Reserve by the U.S. Treasury plus the interest charged on that debt. But, the money to cover the interest charged on the loan was never created so a cycle of never-ending debt is the only thing we can ever experience.) Real value, purpose, and fulfillment likely can only come from the knowledge gained through the lifelong exercise of learning and the relationships built along the way. But, many of us are unaware because we devote the largest portions of our lives clocked in to mostly mundane, technologically obsolete jobs to (you guessed it!) make money. To what end? When the game’s over, it all goes back in the box...
John Ortberg: "It all goes back in the box" (2007)
5. What is the sustainable resource base? How much energy do we need to increase well being over time?
5. What is the sustainable resource base? How much energy do we need to increase well being over time?
As stated in response to last week's question, energy is the cornerstone of modern society. And, we use around 16 terawatts of energy per year. Still, around 14% of the global human population has little or no access to electricity. If we assume a 1:1 correlation between that portion of the population and what would become their energy usage then, all other factors unchanged, if those roughly 1.1-billion people were to immediately start using energy at the average rate, a rough calculation shows that we would have to be producing over 18 terawatts of energy to satisfy global needs.
(Eq. 1) 
The sustainable resource base includes any resources that have regeneration and/or recycling rates comparable to or much shorter than the average human lifespan. But, there must also be a conscious component involved that requires us to design an economy with the intelligent extraction and allocation of resources built right in; i.e. maximizing product lifespans and minimizing waste. In terms of energy, the concept of emergy is critical to creating its sustainable resource base. Emergy tells us the relationship between how much energy it takes to extract a given amount of a source of energy and the amount of energy that given amount can actually produce. In other words, if we are to build hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of solar panels and windmills, how much energy would be involved from the beginning of the process(through fuels, goods, and services) to the point of a finished product that is actually sending energy to the grid and how does that number compare with the final yield of the finished product?
(Eq. 2) 
This ratio clearly indicates that if we can increase the efficiency of the final yield of a given amount of a resource, then we are striving to minimize emergy. For example, say we have an amount of an energy resource that has the potential to produce an emjoule of energy; but the final yield of that amount after extraction, refinement, transportation, and use is just 70% of the original potential, then, using Eq. 2,
But, if we were to somehow increase the yield to 85%, then,
So, when discussing the net emergy ratio of both renewables, such as solar, and non-renewables, such as oil, it is important to note that these two examples sit at the extremes in the results. That is, the net emergy ratio for oil is HUGE compared to that of solar. And it's because it requires such an intensive series of processes to produce a given amount of usable oil--each requiring their own varying amounts of the resource in question to function. Once a solar panel is produced and installed, it's all energy production and minimal maintenance for its average 20-year lifespan. But, once a gallon of oil is burnt, the carbon dioxide produced has an atmospheric half-life of about 30 years and then we're left to deal (or not deal) with the ramifications of ignoring the necessity of carbon sinks.
But, what about how increasing well-being is related to energy? Of course the idea of well-being is subjective. But, we can still frame it within the context of reducing human and environmental suffering while providing access-abundance to the necessities of life to every human on the planet. This can be used as a common definition of well-being that perhaps only the most callous isolationists in society would argue against. So, how do we achieve that?!
Coming full-circle, we start with energy--Everything starts with energy! Combining solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and (perhaps most importantly) nuclear, we could easily provide for all of humankind's energy needs. So, if well-being is directly tied to our access to resources, recreational activities, quality healthcare, knowledge and information, and all of the other things that contribute to a rich, fulfilling life, and each of those things is directly tied to particular energy requirements, then it is fair to assume that our well-being is at least indirectly tied to energy requirements in the 21st century. Unfortunately, after careful consideration, the unfulfilling answer to the question of relating energy and well-being might just be that we're going to need however much energy is necessary to satisfy well-being over time. That's because it's a dynamic equilibrium that will depend on social trends, resource availability, psychological pressures, and many, many other factors that will continue to change in the future given societal evolution throughout history. But, if we at least establish a sustainable resource base now, we might not have to worry much about destroying the planet in the near-future (i.e. making it uninhabitable for long enough to wipe ourselves out).
Alas! We'd be free to continue what apparently epitomizes modern sophistication: Using what is perhaps the greatest achievement of humankind to bully each other on social media, squandering incredible amounts of creative potential, and continuing the millennia-old tradition of killing each other over arbitrary philosophical differences...
Sophistication indeed!
https://www.iea.org/energyaccess/database/
6. What are examples of human behavioral patterns, which likely are part of an evolved human nature, and could be important to understand when designing sustainable social systems?
The terms human nature and human behavior represent but one of the many examples from the English language which tend to cause conflict from the outset of discussions involving them because their definitions are often muddled by misunderstanding, conflated without critical examination, or simply framed within the nature vs. nurture context. However, when I think of human nature, I don’t envision some set of inborn behavioral traits that we’re all destined to exhibit—we’re trying to separate the terms, aren’t we? Rather, my understanding of human nature informs me that, as a human organism, there is a particular set of requirements that must be fulfilled in order for our bodies and minds to grow optimally. And if we fail to meet those requirements, the likely result will be suffering both physically and mentally to varying degrees—whether those degrees are perceived by some as having contributed to their own individual growth or not. So, within the context of these given characteristics, what are the requirements that define human nature?
First, we need clean, fresh air. Our bodies have evolved in an oxygen-rich, nitrogen atmosphere that allows aerobic processes to proceed and complex lifeforms, such as humans, to exist. The structure and dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere maintain an adequate environment for all the flora and fauna that we depend upon to grow and survive. Without the proper proportions of what we call trace gases, such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane, a greenhouse effect simply would not sustain the present-day effective surface temperature. (Carbon dioxide comprises only around 0.04% of the atmosphere, yet its influence on atmospheric processes is vast.) As well, life would undoubtedly look much different nowadays had molecular oxygen never been released by early biotic processes and made it to the stratosphere to be dissociated by ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, forming ozone through a series of chemical reactions. In fact, the constant flux of large amounts of UV radiation likely would have sterilized Earth of all but the most hardy extremophiles long before conditions could have been established to evolve highly complex, multicellular organisms like human beings. Essentially, if the ozone layer, which depends upon molecular oxygen, had never formed, life evolving beyond something resembling Deinococcus radiodurans would have been unlikely. We obviously need that oxygen in the present-day atmospheric proportions of roughly 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, lest we face a forced, accelerated evolutionary adaptation in order to accommodate less efficient metabolism if oxygen levels in the atmosphere were to decrease. Take away the air completely and we all die.
Second, we need clean, fresh water. Considering the amount of freshwater on Earth—a mere 2.5% of all the water on the planet—and that only a fraction of that total is currently accessible, the preservation of its supply is absolutely crucial if over seven billion of us are to have ongoing access to it. Techniques exist which can desalinate saltwater; however, such processes are energy intensive and would best be integrated with a renewable energy grid. The freshwater sources that already exist have become so stressed by both an exponential increase in population and a market economy that allows privatization of those sources for profit, that if we don’t immediately take action, billions of people will live in high water stress areas by the end of the next decade alone—water scarcity affecting some 24-700 million in semi-arid places around the world by 2030. Humans generally will die in about 3 days without it; so, if there is one thing that should certainly be included on a list of attributes of human nature, it’s water.
Third, nutritious food is yet another foundational requirement for optimal growth in humans—as obvious and necessary as the previous two. Humans have been mastering agriculture (and later horticulture) for over ten thousand years; yet millions of children die each year globally due to hunger or undernutrition. We simply aren’t qualified to consider ourselves civilized under such conditions of placated indifference toward this atrocity. We collectively throw away 30-40% of all the food produced in the United States each year. That comes out to somewhere in the vicinity of over 66-million tons if 31% waste is assumed! Good food. Thrown away… And this doesn’t even take into account the millions of tons of grain fed to livestock yearly!—All while people starve to death. We’re a weird species but no matter how different we think we are individually, take away our food sources and we’ll die in just a few weeks. Fundamental indeed.
Fourth, to varying degrees based upon skin pigmentation, latitude, air pollution, and a few other factors, humans need sunlight for the production of vitamin D in the skin. Through a series of metabolic processes, vitamin D eventually “plays an important role in cellular immunity.” While the link isn’t yet fully understood, vitamin D has been implicated in preventing a host of autoimmune diseases. But, beyond this anthropocentric view, all life as we know it would die without sunlight and the stars that produce it. It’s pretty important—some might even call it a natural requirement.
Finally, humans have evolved as (at least partially-) social beings that require close contact with others in infancy. A baby left untouched but given adequate food and water will die. Furthermore, if our social ties in teenage years and into adulthood become tenuous or dissolve completely, or shift wildly throughout one’s lifetime, then the proclivity for violence—either committing it or becoming desensitized to it when it’s “the right kind”—through in-group/out-group categorization tends to increase. Thus, finding the optimized balance between social interaction and being alone (to think; to read; to do nothing; etc.) should contribute to a reduction in violence.
One might argue that a relevant education could be added to the list; however, humans won’t necessarily die without an education. We can, however, easily destroy ourselves through arrogance and ignorance if we’re not careful. And, these actions would all fall under the label human behavior. In the most basic explanation possible, the above list of five attributes contains all that is encompassed within human nature; everything else is human behavior. The big question is whether or not evolutionary processes such as gene expression are directly linked to behavioral patterns such as emotional expression. For this question, I will simply defer to one of the world’s foremost experts on the topic, Dr. Robert Sapolsky. Dr. Sapolsky has dozens of amazing lectures and presentations online that offer a glimpse into the intersection between behavior and evolutionary biology and I will leave you with this link to check out at least one of them:Robert Sapolsky
Other Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment