Submitted by carl on Thu, 2006-07-13 10:56.
Daily Dialogue Blog Entries
The conversation is heating up. There has been a fair amount of discussion about the meaning of entropy, the interjection of some favored personal theories and perspectives, and the occasional high-level provocation (just my cup of tea, as it happens, but hey, we all have our therapy issues!).
Michael's Material Domain Principle is not hitting the spot for some people. Lyled calls it "(1) unambitious; (2) inconsistent with human aspirations; and (3) ... contrary to humanity's positioning as the "navigator" (per bucky) within the universe." Misskitten says entropy "is a completely natural process and is happening all the time. i don't think we should fight against it."
A fair amount of energy (and hopefully not all that much entropy!) has gone into discussing what entropy really means. Lyled writes: "In the context though of the human influenceable universe within human comprehensible timescales; entropy is not a fact of human circumstances ... This principle needs to be restated such that humanity is tasked with becoming net aggregators of energy for the planet."
Is entropy something that can be minimized, as per Michael's suggestion, or maybe even dodged outright? Most people would say no to the latter, the second law of thermodynamics being what it is. But Portlandio writes: "I'm not into sponsoring this economists' "dismal science" meme, which pretends the 2nd law means ever worsening conditions aboard Spaceship Earth. That's not truly physics and is more about artificially lowering expectations as a part of a long-running propaganda campaign ... My premise is we can afford to live well and healthily over the long haul, on average. That we're not already doing so (living well) to a much higher degree is more evidence of our lack of intellectual integrity, more than of any intrinsic energy shortfall." Referring readers to http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/gst2.html, portlandio decries LAWCAP (Bucky's term for post-FDR "lawyer-capitalism") and argues that general systems theory, if applied with the requisite intelligence, can put the lie to LAWCAP's scarcity paradigm.
A proper summary (and I'm doing my best to be proper!) would include mention of comments that haven't generated lots of responses (yet):
-- Joshua's suggestion that the Policy and Operational Principles for the Economic Domain Principle state: Where appropriate and feasible strive for decentralized redundant/diverse/networked systems with respect to delivery of basic life support goods and services.
-- Misskitten's emphasis on the "question of lifestyle."
-- Robert Searle's "Multi-Dimensional Hypothesis" ("I believe in the end sustainability in the material sense will be transcended, and we will no longer have to exist as physical beings.")
-- Jaime Snyder's delight in Michael's Principles and the entire process. Which I second.