I intend to plant as many food forest plants in and around my yard as possible. I may not see any personal benefit, as I may not be living in this exact location as I age, but right now all I can do is garden and reduce my own expenses.
This is excellent Nate! I've been following your work since The Oil Drum days, and it has been very interesting indeed to track your journey from a distance.
Your proposed 5th Law of thermodynamics is indeed very interesting, but be aware that HT Odum had also proposed a 5th and a 6th law of thermodynamics. His fifth law is a law of energy hierarchy: "All the energy transformations known can be connected in a series network according to the quantity of one kind of energy required for the next." (Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century, p. 65)
This is essentially about energy quality, and the concept of energy transformations. "Available energy decreases through each transformation, but the energy quality increases, with increased ability to reinforce energy interactions upscale and downscale." (ibid, p. 63).
Where your 5th Law meets with Odum's 5th law might be in my own similar idea: as gross quantity of fossil fuel energy goes into decline, can we take this opportunity to increase high quality subtle energy in our bodies and our personal relations - what those in the east would call "qi" or "prana"? As you say, to throttle the quantity of gross fossil fuel energy, but attaining very tangible states of vitality and satisfaction through cultivation of higher quality subtle energy, via practices such as qigong, Tai Chi', yoga, etc.
We also need to embrace a broader definition of "Power," but that is another topic.
FYI, my presentation discussing the influence of HT Odum's insights about energy and power on David Holmgren's development of Permaculture principles is here:
1) Abiding by hypocrisy (in others words, contributing to problem) and then asking, how did we got here? 🤔
2) Is it possible to bring some of your content to Substack?
3) Total dependence on YouTube to communicate your message is part of the problem. Great thinkers talk about global collapse and environmental catastrophe, yet they are tethered to Google like it's their umbilical cord or lifeline. Is Google your umbilical cord?
4) Are we now all doomed until eternity as thought leaders have signaled ‘yes’ — you too are tethered to Google. Is resistance futile? Have we been assimilated?
5) When you've got something LIVE on Substack, I’d love to know. Not interested in signing into Google to prove not a not a bot. Google doesn't own me or you. Or does it?
According to ChatGPT — Google 🙄😂
Critiques of Google’s role in contributing to environmental catastrophe largely focus on its energy consumption, carbon footprint, and the environmental impact of its data centers and infrastructure. Some of the major criticisms include:
1. High Energy Consumption of Data Centers: Google operates vast data centers that require significant amounts of electricity to power servers and cool the systems. While Google has made strides to power its data centers with renewable energy, critics argue that the company’s overall energy consumption, particularly in its data centers, is immense, and there are concerns about the environmental toll of the infrastructure required to support their services.
2. Carbon Emissions: Despite pledging to operate carbon-neutral since 2007, Google has been criticized for its indirect carbon emissions. These include emissions linked to the energy grids they rely on in different regions, particularly in areas where renewable energy is not widely available, or when they purchase power from fossil fuel sources.
3. E-Waste: Google, like many tech companies, is often criticized for contributing to the growing problem of electronic waste (e-waste). The company produces a range of hardware products, from smartphones (Pixel) to data centers, that contribute to resource depletion and create disposal challenges once outdated or damaged.
4. Supply Chain Impact: The environmental impact of Google’s hardware and technology supply chain is another concern. Critics point out that Google’s sourcing of raw materials for its devices (like rare earth minerals used in smartphones) contributes to environmental degradation in mining areas, as well as unethical labor practices in some cases.
5. Planned Obsolescence: Some argue that Google, along with other tech giants, engages in planned obsolescence—releasing new versions of products at regular intervals which encourages consumers to discard old devices, contributing to both e-waste and overconsumption of resources.
6. Lack of Transparency: While Google has made promises about sustainability, some environmental advocates argue that the company is not fully transparent about the full environmental impact of its operations, especially with regard to its supply chains, hardware, and energy usage.
7. Environmental Impact of Google’s Cloud Services: As Google expands its cloud services, the environmental impact of these services—particularly as they are used by businesses globally—has raised concerns about the broader effects of cloud computing on the environment, including carbon emissions and the environmental costs of expanding server farms.
Despite these criticisms, Google has taken steps to address its environmental impact. The company has made significant efforts to offset its carbon emissions, invest in renewable energy projects, and pursue sustainability initiatives. However, the scale of its operations and the complexity of its environmental footprint continue to draw scrutiny from environmental activists and critics.
With regard to the question: “Will the masses of humanity have any voice in the future?”
Matthew David Segal shared an astute reflection recently about Musk’s frequent use of the phrase “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” (link below).
Here’s what it comes down to: we see a lot of demagoguery for the moment, with claims for more free speech (via social media predominantly). It is worrying however that this particular voice of ‘the people’ tends to verge on madness, as was predicted in the original Latin quote the phrase was lifted from: “Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.”
Translation: “Do not listen to those who say the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the tumult of the crowd is always close to madness.”
We seem far removed from a proper way of engendering a peaceful and productive kind of participation by the public. Towards a coalition of sanity! 😉
I intend to plant as many food forest plants in and around my yard as possible. I may not see any personal benefit, as I may not be living in this exact location as I age, but right now all I can do is garden and reduce my own expenses.
This is excellent Nate! I've been following your work since The Oil Drum days, and it has been very interesting indeed to track your journey from a distance.
Your proposed 5th Law of thermodynamics is indeed very interesting, but be aware that HT Odum had also proposed a 5th and a 6th law of thermodynamics. His fifth law is a law of energy hierarchy: "All the energy transformations known can be connected in a series network according to the quantity of one kind of energy required for the next." (Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century, p. 65)
This is essentially about energy quality, and the concept of energy transformations. "Available energy decreases through each transformation, but the energy quality increases, with increased ability to reinforce energy interactions upscale and downscale." (ibid, p. 63).
Where your 5th Law meets with Odum's 5th law might be in my own similar idea: as gross quantity of fossil fuel energy goes into decline, can we take this opportunity to increase high quality subtle energy in our bodies and our personal relations - what those in the east would call "qi" or "prana"? As you say, to throttle the quantity of gross fossil fuel energy, but attaining very tangible states of vitality and satisfaction through cultivation of higher quality subtle energy, via practices such as qigong, Tai Chi', yoga, etc.
We also need to embrace a broader definition of "Power," but that is another topic.
FYI, my presentation discussing the influence of HT Odum's insights about energy and power on David Holmgren's development of Permaculture principles is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhgCzKGCbrw
Some of the central questions of our time:
1) Abiding by hypocrisy (in others words, contributing to problem) and then asking, how did we got here? 🤔
2) Is it possible to bring some of your content to Substack?
3) Total dependence on YouTube to communicate your message is part of the problem. Great thinkers talk about global collapse and environmental catastrophe, yet they are tethered to Google like it's their umbilical cord or lifeline. Is Google your umbilical cord?
4) Are we now all doomed until eternity as thought leaders have signaled ‘yes’ — you too are tethered to Google. Is resistance futile? Have we been assimilated?
5) When you've got something LIVE on Substack, I’d love to know. Not interested in signing into Google to prove not a not a bot. Google doesn't own me or you. Or does it?
According to ChatGPT — Google 🙄😂
Critiques of Google’s role in contributing to environmental catastrophe largely focus on its energy consumption, carbon footprint, and the environmental impact of its data centers and infrastructure. Some of the major criticisms include:
1. High Energy Consumption of Data Centers: Google operates vast data centers that require significant amounts of electricity to power servers and cool the systems. While Google has made strides to power its data centers with renewable energy, critics argue that the company’s overall energy consumption, particularly in its data centers, is immense, and there are concerns about the environmental toll of the infrastructure required to support their services.
2. Carbon Emissions: Despite pledging to operate carbon-neutral since 2007, Google has been criticized for its indirect carbon emissions. These include emissions linked to the energy grids they rely on in different regions, particularly in areas where renewable energy is not widely available, or when they purchase power from fossil fuel sources.
3. E-Waste: Google, like many tech companies, is often criticized for contributing to the growing problem of electronic waste (e-waste). The company produces a range of hardware products, from smartphones (Pixel) to data centers, that contribute to resource depletion and create disposal challenges once outdated or damaged.
4. Supply Chain Impact: The environmental impact of Google’s hardware and technology supply chain is another concern. Critics point out that Google’s sourcing of raw materials for its devices (like rare earth minerals used in smartphones) contributes to environmental degradation in mining areas, as well as unethical labor practices in some cases.
5. Planned Obsolescence: Some argue that Google, along with other tech giants, engages in planned obsolescence—releasing new versions of products at regular intervals which encourages consumers to discard old devices, contributing to both e-waste and overconsumption of resources.
6. Lack of Transparency: While Google has made promises about sustainability, some environmental advocates argue that the company is not fully transparent about the full environmental impact of its operations, especially with regard to its supply chains, hardware, and energy usage.
7. Environmental Impact of Google’s Cloud Services: As Google expands its cloud services, the environmental impact of these services—particularly as they are used by businesses globally—has raised concerns about the broader effects of cloud computing on the environment, including carbon emissions and the environmental costs of expanding server farms.
Despite these criticisms, Google has taken steps to address its environmental impact. The company has made significant efforts to offset its carbon emissions, invest in renewable energy projects, and pursue sustainability initiatives. However, the scale of its operations and the complexity of its environmental footprint continue to draw scrutiny from environmental activists and critics.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Yes. YouTube is great. So it ChatGPT. Carry on.
With regard to the question: “Will the masses of humanity have any voice in the future?”
Matthew David Segal shared an astute reflection recently about Musk’s frequent use of the phrase “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” (link below).
Here’s what it comes down to: we see a lot of demagoguery for the moment, with claims for more free speech (via social media predominantly). It is worrying however that this particular voice of ‘the people’ tends to verge on madness, as was predicted in the original Latin quote the phrase was lifted from: “Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.”
Translation: “Do not listen to those who say the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the tumult of the crowd is always close to madness.”
We seem far removed from a proper way of engendering a peaceful and productive kind of participation by the public. Towards a coalition of sanity! 😉
https://substack.com/@footnotes2plato/note/c-95456723