Sustainability Principles Online Dialogue

The term "entropy" is going to problematic for many people who don't really understand the concept. If we also introduce "syntropy," it's only going to turn off more people.

Here is the First Principle as currently stated:

"Contain entropy and ensure that the flow of resources, through and within the economy, is as nearly non-declining as is permitted by physical laws."

misskitten raised the question of whether making do with LESS (stuff, transportation, etc.) is an option. In the extreme case, if we did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL and just let nature take its course, we would leave the world as nearly non-declining as is permitted by physical laws.

Assuming that we want some certain standard of living for all of humainty, we're gonna have to make use of our material resources. How should we use them? Maybe we want to try to phrase the principle more accessibly, perhaps by updating an old standby:

"Reduce energy and material use where possible; reuse existing objects when practical; and recycle natural resources with as little waste as is necessary for humanity to live well without ruining the planet."

Since the second law requires SOME waste, how much waste is necessary for this global standard of living? To me, that's what the principle is about. Do the best we can with the physical world we've got for as many humans as possible for as long as possible.

The next level of education can deal with the limits to efficiency. For this document, I'd avoid the terms entropy and syntropy -- they are not clear ideas for most people.

Am facinated and thankful for the reaction to the first principle, particularly in regard the use of the term entropy and more specifically to the the idea of "containing" entropy.

I am confortable with the notion that entropy and syntropy are dual balancing forces in universe. Am also familiar with Bucky's development of the theme with the idea that life processes and, particularly consciousness, represent the order-increasing component, and his speculative suggestion concerning the function of humans in universe as the "local" anti-entropic feed-back loop.

Two comments:

First, while entropy and syntropy can be seen as two oposit components in a cosmic balancing act, the fact is that they are not really separate (as is the case with dual extremes). They are completely intertwined and do not exist as separate forces. So, for example, the underlying machinary (if not the spirit), the infrastructure of syntropic processe, the physiology and other components of living organisms, are all ultimately subject to decay, which decay often feeds the emergence of new syntropic structures and so on.

Two, one facinating attribute of humans has to do with this inherent talent to act as creators of order (think about the creation of new life, of knowledge, music, art, the realization of first principles in superior designs, and more) but also as agents of order destruction.

The first principle recognizes that entropy is inevitable and some loss will be a part to any sequence of transactions. But it also suggests that in participating in sich transactions, were flows of energy and materials are formed and reformed to some advantage, we could thrive to ensure that we act as creators of order by applying coscious dicipline and limiting unecessary waste (in all its forms). Hence "contain entropy."

I think the difficulty with the phrasing of this principle is that it emphasis is on the "Entropy" side,....of what I see now as a "Tensegrity" relationship, of a two sided "coin".

I knew all about Entropy and the increasing disorder of Universe...
But what BF showed, in Synergetics and his works, is that they did not teach us the Syntropy side of the coin while in school.

Tension is continuos and Compression is discontinuos . When Tension and Compression are in a balanced system then the system is a "Tensgrity"

Entropy can be described as the energetic continuos "flow of energy" always downhill towards increasing entropy. Application of synergetics creates Syntropy harnessing this energetic, entropy increasing flow.

Syntropy is discontinuos and requires Synergetic harnessing of the Energetic flow towards increasing entropy by the application of "Information" and "Intelligence" to using physical resources and energetic flows to increase order.

Entropy is not bad in itself, as you cant have Syntropy and order without the energetic flows that increase entropy.. But synergy allows the harnessing of these flows to create order and intelligence that transform our environment.

Sustainability is about harnessing this flow efficiently by the application of intelligence to the natural flows of energy in our environment..eg Hydro power stations have been improved and more energy harnessed by replacing old turbine designs with improved more efficient turbine designs ( upto 30% more kinetic energy is harnessed as electrical energy thus deferring the need to build more power stations)

This is an increase in the Syntropy of the system and a haranessing of the Entropy-warding flow.

So how do simplify and restate the principle in terms of : - ??

Harnessing the flow of energy and resources (towards increasing entropy and disorder by Increasing the Syntropy and order in whole systems) contained within natural and the economic systems by increasing efficiency and synergy of these systems to the benefit of all mankind.

speaking of entropy, do we really need all the objects we produce? much better than the highly sophisticated, minimal-entropy production (or transportation or whatever) process, is no process at all... it seems to me that in discussions similar to this, we all imagine a future where we have all that we have today, it's just that that the technology changes, and becomes green. my opinion is that, having in mind the increase of the population, and that "green" technologies keep polluting and using natural resources, (only less than conventional ones), the problem is not going to go away. i think that in the future, if the equilibrium is to be re-established, we will have to settle with LESS...

hi, all,

the reduction of entropy is a standard engineering concern, if by that we mean "efficiency." think of oiling the pulley to reduce friction. of course, if we did a total energy audit that included what was needed to get the oil out of the ground and to the can in my hand, the efficiency might be a bit reduced. And total energy audits are, I believe, needed in thinking/ planning sustainability projects, vide a recent New Scientist article on the questionable reduction of green house emissions when wind farms are built in peat bogs. seems like the turbines disrupt the bogs which have captured a lot of CO2.

in any case, it is worth noting that information in a shannon-weaver sense is neg-entropy. crudely put, you can make order out of disorder by adding energy. (Maxwell's demon revisited) so management of more complex societies needs more energy, but there can be gain the more efficient the management. like we're discussing this over the internet, asynchronously rather than all flying to somewhere to discuss FTF, synchonously. though aspen is nice this time of year.

now the

entropy is a completely natural process and is happening all the time. i don't think we should fight against it. i think that an issue much more important than the entropy, speaking of the material, is the integration of the production in the existing eco-cycles. but then again, as the ecosystems are such a complex thing and seem to escape our understanding, the response would be the maximum reduction of the "hunger for objects" whisch leads to another issues - the consumtion, accepted lifestyles etc,,...

As stated, this principle is (1) unambitious; (2)inconsistent with human aspirations; and (3)is contrary to humanity's positioning as the "navigator" (per bucky) within the universe.

Granted, entropy on the on the scale of the physical universe is, per current thermodynamic understanding, a problematic fact. In the context though of the human influenceable universe within human comprehensible timescales; entropy is not a fact of human circumstances. In point of fact, our spaceship earth reflects enourmous amounts of energy into space everyday (where it becomes entropic). This principle needs to be restated such that humanity is tasked with become net aggregators of energy for the planet. Mind is to be tasked with designing structures for planetary benefit of high complexity (chemical, structural) that would contain this energy in a positive manner.

2. As presently stated, the principle aspires to a goal of planetary/humanity dying slower than if we did nothing. A hard goal to really get behind and contrary to the apparent human need/hope/want for "more". As stated, though advocating better design, it is ultimately a goal for "less" for humanity. As bucky has said, it is more effective to change the environment than to change humans. Changing the principle in line with (1) above is more positivist and more in keeping with humans as they exist.

3. My understanding of bucky's thinking is that the lifeforce is fundamentally anti-entropic. Combined with the concept of "mind" bucky arrived at the concept of humanity as the "navigator" within the universe. The concept of navigator then takes advantage of (1) humanity/life as an aggregator of energy and (2) turns to a positive the drive for humans/life to want "more". In the context of the long term physical universe, the hoped for outcome will be humans aggregating energy and building things of increasing complexity to store it. With lifeforce and this drive to build, we arrive at a principle that is anti-enropic/universe saving.

If "entropy" were to be "contained", where would one expect that the resulting disorder would manifest itself? Is it possible to capture it and feed it back into the system? Yet, wouldn't that action in itself create more? Is it feasible to capture entropy, and although not "control" it, perhaps "guide" it?

====================================
Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation, what do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors? (Plato, Alcibiades, 135AD).

No.
Let me elaborate:
- not clear to a lay audience -- neither what entropy means nor what it means to "contain entropy"
- not sufficient, in that "ensure that the flow of resources...is as nearly non-declining" is not specific enough and not challenging enough (eg, compared to "ensure that the flow of resources...is non-declining" -- although that's probably not the best way to phrase it