Surcharged generator or not?

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen, magnificent formula that this one:

We are facing an entropic crisis of an anthropic nature!

Perhaps it would be possible to densify it as follows: "The current ecocide is an entropic crisis of an anthropic nature!"?

[izentrop]

It seems more comfortable to live with a source of clean and abundant energy.

I would say rather sufficient, because the optimization of the processes means that we need less and less primary energy and raw material to do the same work. In all areas.
For example, the first computers at the end of the last world war were in an entire building, consumed a lot of energy and could not do more than a small calculator today. Progress has been made in all areas and also in agriculture. So comfort is not dependent on abundant energy, the bioclimatic house is the best example.
Free energy is that which we do not consume.

No matter how we have no more time to waste with chimeras, we only have 10 to 20 years left to meet the challenge of RC.

[Ahmed]

Optimizing processes certainly reduces the unit quantity required, but because of the paradox of Jevons (or "rebound effect"), overall consumption tends to increase ...

[sen-no-sen]

Perhaps it would be possible to densify it as follows: "The current ecocide is an entropic crisis of an anthropic nature!"?

I valid!

The question of optimization i.e. exergy, is very interesting, however optimization, if it is unavoidable, can be (and it is!) become a clever way for the system to redefine itself through a "moult".
It is on this principle that "sustainable growth" is based:shoot the whole planet but not too fast!
Physically speaking, if you cut a tree with a 2000W chainsaw instead of 2500W it will not change much for the fate of the forest.
In addition, the energy gain is often outsourced elsewhere (high-tech electric motors often use scarce resources which must be sought far).
So if we talk about decay we must not lie: we must live with less as do Amish for example.

[moinsdewatt]

It seems more comfortable to live with a source of clean and abundant energy.

It seems more interesting to me to live with a beautiful and attractive woman.

It seems to me more comfortable to live with a substantial salary and not too difficult a job.

It seems better to me to get healthy food for almost nothing. (the myth already mentioned of free food)

It seems exquisite to me to live surrounded by affectionate, considerate, and kind people.

It seems convenient to live in a pretty house which I own, in a pretty and pollution-free place, and that someone would have sold me a mouthful of bread

It seems enviable to me to live in a world without war or conflict

short

It seems to me that eclectron lives on his little waking cloud of awakening and that he comes to troll here on energy.

[izentrop]

So if we talk about decay we must not lie: we must live with less as do Amish for example.

Well they evolve, like everyone! https://www.courrierinternational.com/a ... chnologies

[Ahmed]

Mimetic contamination is at work and the Amish have hit the nail on the head!

[eclectron]

You are ripe to read the thread devoted to F. Roddier!
… Too sudden dissipation would signify the disappearance of the dissipative agent (man); conclusion: to dissipate more, it is necessary to dissipate less, but longer!

Possible, I don't know what this good man is saying.
Nothing shocking in any case, there are always natural limits to which to adapt.

It seems more comfortable to live with a source of clean and abundant energy.

...
It seems to me that eclectron lives on his little waking cloud of awakening and that he comes to troll here on energy.

I seek to understand the world around me and faced with the current situation, I seek solutions, nuance.
I don't remember who said that imagination is more important than knowledge?
I would not want to hurt you further but it is an approach that seems to be foreign to you (find solutions) or else in a restrictive framework that you yourself have forged, perhaps.

Yet it is genius that is the cause of the current ecocide.
As mentioned above we are (humanity) already intelligent and most humans have a relatively responsible lifestyle (without which we would have disappeared long ago).

In fact no, man has acted "intelligently" without knowing the global implications of his local actions,
by nature concerned about its survival or personal and immediate enjoyment, which is being irresponsible for the box in which we live (the Earth).
Limits force us to live the time of retreat from our past and present acts, that would be smart, to have a slight retreat.

I do not see how an overabundant access to energy (which fortunately is not for now) would calm humanity.

In nothing !
Just that meets a need.
Given our dependence on energy, its absence would lead to chaos, which hardly enchants me.
Clean and abundant energy, sufficient to meet all current needs, does not change anything in the face of the current world, except for the cessation of GHGs, some pollution and certain ecocides (deforestation for wood of heating or cooking).
After us to be smart in its use.
It is not because we have nuclear fire that we press the button, bah there it is the same, or not ...
It's up to us to be smart this time.

It is difficult to speak of irresponsibility as the determinisms

The only determinism on Earth is: "my mouth, my little mouth"
Selfishness is all there is to drive any action.
Altruism being a form of refined selfishness "it ME please be selfless "
If one wants a fundamental change, it is the point of his individuality (ego) that each individual must work freely and individually.
It seems mission impossible, too ambitious, so in the meantime, I'm looking for solutions outside of humans, as we have always done.
Consciousness is more global today, or at least has the possibility of being so.
Again only the individual decides what is good for him, based on his knowledge, which if it is only local and self-centered leads to global collapse. Go hop, a bullet in the foot !
I no longer remember who said the only problem with man is that he is intelligent but not enough.

[eclectron]

I will have to be away for a moment, so to conclude on my side these very interesting exchanges, it emerges:

"Free energy", in the sense given by the community of the same name, is not available at the instant t, either because it will never exist, or because it is not yet operational and understood.
I personally have a bundle of concordant clues which leads me to believe that its existence is possible but everything is refutable, without further evidence.
I will not convince you of its existence, not being myself 100% convinced.
Staying a priori that it does not exist, does not help to know more about it.

In conclusion, an objective and rational position would be to say "I don't know, one way or the other".
Impossible to conclude definitively on the existence or not, of a free energy for the moment.

Furthermore, according to some, clean energy but above all plentiful, would add a problem to the problem, leading to increased or even accelerated destruction of ecosystems. It is a risk.
(Living is a risk )
In my opinion, it means responding from the top to a real need.
It is everyone's beliefs about the capacity for evolution of man and his growing awareness, or not, that lead us to divergent conclusions.
Anyway at the instant t this energy plentiful for "eternity" does not exist, so the current problem is the scarcity of energy compared to the growing dependence and GHGs.
Problem to which free energy would respond, which does not exist at time t.

[sen-no-sen]

You are ripe to read the thread devoted to F. Roddier!
In fact no, man has acted "intelligently" without knowing the global implications of his local actions,
by nature concerned about its survival or personal and immediate enjoyment, which is being irresponsible for the box in which we live (the Earth).
Limits force us to live the time of retreat from our past and present acts, that would be smart, to have a slight retreat.

This irresponsibility is only the result of the limitation of our senses.
The human being is biologically adapted for the life in tribes, but very quickly the technology allowed him to multiply his possibilities, much less his responsibility. There is nothing "stupid" nor bad in it.

Given our dependence on energy, its absence would lead to chaos, which hardly enchants me.
Clean and abundant energy, sufficient to meet all current needs, does not change anything in the face of the current world, except for the cessation of GHGs, some pollution and certain ecocides (deforestation for wood of heating or cooking).
After us to be smart in its use.

The total deprivation of energy in our industrial societies would actually cause chaos, however we should not deduce that a planned decrease would lead us to anomy, quite the contrary.
Historically, we find that access to an energy source generates cycles of innovation according to a linear / disruptive principle, the discovery of a new source of energy, a fortiori unlimited and clean, would bring humanity into a new era. .
However, it is important to realize that the new era in question would be synonymous with an ontological transformation which would risk relegating current ecological questions to details.

It is not because we have nuclear fire that we press the button, bah there it is the same, or not ...
It's up to us to be smart this time.

Following Hiroshima et Nagasaki we pressed the button almost 1050 times (unofficially 2000 times) to carry out nuclear tests, a period which marked the transition from intra-specific (human-to-human) war to biocidal colonization.
Without nuclear weapons, the cycle of exponential economic growth could not have taken place on a global scale for lack of a peaceful zone or to replicate.