Global cyber attack risk

[sen-no-sen]

a star does not lead to a maximum production of entropy, precisely, otherwise it would explode instantly! This happens sometimes in the case of supernovae, but it is precisely because there are no longer any stable structures possible.

We must remain vigilant in the correlation between words and their transcription to physical phenomena and avoid too direct extrapolations.
In everyday language, thePigmentation refers to the most important possibilities that can be brought into play.
For example in running the maximum corresponds to a sprint of 30,50,100 m according to the physical possibilities of the runner.
Applied to a star it could therefore, as you mention, correspond in our imagination to a supernovæ type explosion (energy sprint). The problem is that such an explosion is simply not possible for an accreting gas cloud, any more than a human embryo could run the 100m!
Prerequisites are needed, in particular an evolution of the different constituents of the star to arrive, depending on its mass, at a white dwarf type evolution or for larger masses of novae, super novae, etc.

When we speak of maximum entropy production, we are referring to the maximum level that the energy flows can reach with regard to the state of the system considered, not a reasoning extrapolated to the absolute.
For example, in the earth's atmosphere, currents are formed, these correspond to the temperature differences between the poles and the equator, resulting in air movements that will self-organize, which will cause currents of air from the equator towards the poles leading at the same time to a temperature balancing of the air masses and a reduction in the yield of mechanical energy production.
Pass a stage therefore, the currents stop increasing, we consider that they have reached their maximum values:they are then in a state of maximum entropy production.
This does not mean that there should be a single one-second gale at 3000km / h.

except that the lichen will have "temporarily" slowed down the entropy flow a bit, and eventually store some negentropy in fossil form. But he will not have accelerated the production of entropy, he will have used it.

The principle of maximum entropy production is still respected in the living world.
Your lichen does not accelerate thermal entropy stricto sensu but it accelerates it informally over time, which anyway amounts to increasing the entropy to a level higher than a pebble.
Cyanobacteria dissipate about 10 mW / Kg, the various plants 100 mW / Kg, the first animals dissipate 1 W / Kg, Man dissipates 3 W / Kg (at rest), etc.
Eric Chaisson for example demonstrated that a human being dissipates 10 times more energy per unit mass than the solar equivalent!
[url] https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/Springer_complexity_ (exobio) _final_review.pdf
[/ Url]

[ABC2019]

When we speak of maximum entropy production, we are referring to the maximum level that the energy flows can reach with regard to the state of the system considered, not a reasoning extrapolated to the absolute.
For example, in the earth's atmosphere, currents are formed, these correspond to the temperature differences between the poles and the equator, resulting in air movements that will self-organize, which will cause currents of air from the equator towards the poles leading at the same time to a temperature balancing of the air masses and a reduction in the yield of mechanical energy production.
Pass a stage therefore, the currents stop increasing, we consider that they have reached their maximum values:they are then in a state of maximum entropy production.

but there is no principle of maximum entropy production. This is a formulation that we often come across, but which is false.

For example if you use 1 l of gasoline to operate an excavator which raises 1m ^ 3 of earth from a certain height, well this is not the maximum production of entropy: the maximum production of entropy would have been obtained by burning that liter of gasoline without doing anything with it. The "backhoe" structure used part of the energy to store it in the form of gravity energy, with low entropy (likely to give back to work later). So no, it is not a principle of maximum production - in simple (quasi-linear) systems, we can even show that it is rather a minimum production of entropy, for a given energy flow.

The principle of maximum entropy production is still respected in the living world.
Your lichen does not accelerate thermal entropy stricto sensu but it accelerates it informally over time, which anyway amounts to increasing the entropy to a level higher than a pebble.
Cyanobacteria dissipate about 10 mW / Kg, the various plants 100 mW / Kg, the first animals dissipate 1 W / Kg, Man dissipates 3 W / Kg (at rest), etc.
Eric Chaisson for example demonstrated that a human being dissipates 10 times more energy per unit mass than the solar equivalent!
[url] https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/reprints/Springer_complexity_ (exobio) _final_review.pdf
[/ Url]

sorry but it's incorrect to say that. The flow of energy passing through the structure certainly increases, but initially, it is solar energy, which would have arrived on earth anyway and which would have been dissipated anyway. And who in doing so would have produced MORE entropy than without these structures.

Dissipative structures are not responsible for producing entropy, what you don't eat will rot and oxidize anyway. They use an already present entropy production to organize themselves, it is not the same.

It is clear that humanity has increased the production of entropy by starting to burn fossils, but it is not according to a "'physical principle", it is a bit of a coincidence that it is. leads to being able to do that, which increased its ability to dispel entropy. But the fact that he's using it for "smart" things means that the entropy created is LESS than if those fossils had spontaneously burned down.

[ABC2019]

Eric Chaisson for example demonstrated that a human being dissipates 10 times more energy per unit mass than the solar equivalent!

indeed it introduces an interesting notion, that of energy production density (it might have been better to measure the entropy production density, but basically it amounts to dividing by the temperature), but it is not the same as the production of TOTAL entropy: as he notices in the article, the mass of stars is much greater than that of humans, and even if the density is lower, it is far more than compensated by this more mass. great - no doubt that greater complexity allows density greater dissipation, but that's a higher order problem, of sorts.

[humus]

Humus, I am very confused for the shell that you have raised very well: of course, it was about dominants and not dominated which it was question!

Ah Ok I understand better now.
We agree.

On the second point, you have to see things globally and dynamically of course, which I forgot to say.
This is, moreover, a decisive point which explains, for example, the current dissociation between a "masculine" and a "feminine" cultural sphere * that had already been noted approximately. Adam Smith in its time: the competitive capitalist structure is the bearer of so much negativity and self-destruction that it could not, any more than the lions of your example, survive without a sphere of "care" which takes charge of the reproduction of life (in the very broad sense of the term). It is a question of establishing a balance between two phenomena opposed in appearance, but complementary in reality: the cold waters of the performative rationality (producer of goods) on the one hand and the "feelings", the minimum empathy allowing this. society to survive.

OK too.

From an ideological point of view, this mixture allows to maintain a good dose of confusion in the minds by obscuring the reality of the intrinsic perversity of the system and by transforming it into "excess" or "drifts", throwing the blame on agents of the system for moral reasons of rapacity or hubris ...

There, not OK.
The system carries within it the seeds of perversion (no doubt like any system) but each individual decides to activate the perversion or not, depending on his degree of consciousness.
I recognize that it is not easy to go against the grain of the system, but it is possible to a certain extent.
It is at least very possible not to amplify the faults of the system, by remaining measured and sober.

[humus]

If the maximization of energy dissipation guided the course of the world, we would have a peak of growth of the best competitor, followed by his self-destruction.

This remark is only true for a simplified process as is the case for example with a forest fire.

In the case of life, several other parameters will be taken into account such as self-catalysis,homeostasis et learning(parameters that define Life in the broad sense).
Life forms are therefore able to memorize information so as not to tend towards self-destruction.
The idea of ​​maximum entropy production is therefore not only realized in the way of dissipating energy (in terms of movement for example) but also by the flow of information that they record, which allows them to maximize the rate of entropy production.

The example with the techno-industrial society is striking: imagine an industrial society where no environmental standards would be put in place, in such a case the ecosystem and health damage would quickly lead such a system to collapse.

In the case of a society taking environmental damage into account, memorizing ecosystem issues would quickly lead to legislative and technical countermeasures allowing the system to function again and again. ET to be able to replicate itself in the world ... this is essentially the current model!
Question: which of its two models dissipates the most energy in finality? A local and ephemeral model or a "sustainable" and global model?

Sorry to keep it simple but whatever happens on the planet, it is not possible to dissipate and consume more energy than what the sun sends to us (neglecting nuclear and geothermal energy -> energy from the sun). 'primary star)
Therefore the planet, including humans, must function within the energetic boundary of the sun.
The first peoples achieve this perfectly by being 100% renewable and not having an unbridled dermography, because of their way of life.
I imagine Eric Chaisson's factor 10000 applies to the western way of life?

In the context limited by the sun, discussing the maximization of dissipation seems to me to comb the giraffe.
Discussing the fate of living beings seems more relevant to me.

Each component of the planet's ecosystem, including humans, manages with the available energy.
Each component of an ecosystem manages to have its share of the pie and to endure.
Currently we are dissipating solar energy stored in carbon chains, this gives a boost to human beings, a very temporary boost, reduced to geological time scales.
It is this boost from the fossils, which allows the expression of hubris.
A boost that can only lead to a collapse, such as a forest fire, as long as the hubris is at work.
If humans want to avoid or lessen the post-carbon collapse, they have to work on themselves, on their own behaviors.
Outside of this path, there is no salvation. At least I don't see any.

[sen-no-sen]

For example if you use 1 l of gasoline to operate an excavator which raises 1m ^ 3 of earth from a certain height, well this is not the maximum production of entropy: the maximum production of entropy would have been obtained by burning that liter of gasoline without doing anything with it. The "backhoe" structure used part of the energy to store it in the form of gravity energy, with low entropy (likely to give back to work later). So no, it is not a principle of maximum production - in simple (quasi-linear) systems, we can even show that it is rather a minimum production of entropy, for a given energy flow.

Your reasoning reminds me of the demon of Maxwell... basically your excavator is going down in history ex nihilo?
Didn't it take energy, materials, research etc. to produce a construction machine? How did your excavator get by the road, who built the road?
The notion of global entropy should not be confused with the more subtle notion of local negentropy.

Dissipative structures are not responsible for producing entropy, what you don't eat will rot and oxidize anyway. They use an already present entropy production to organize themselves, it is not the same.

What I don't eat will actually deteriorate no matter what, but my action on the world can clearly accelerate this deterioration.
After that it was never mentioned that the structures were the cause of the entropy of the universe, they are a consequence based on self-organization. In short, nature is organized to "fluidify" the passage of its strengths. Why do you think we see the appearance of a cyclone?

[sen-no-sen]

There, not OK.
The system carries within it the seeds of perversion (no doubt like any system) but each individual decides to activate the perversion or not, depending on his degree of consciousness.
I recognize that it is not easy to go against the grain of the system, but it is possible to a certain extent.
It is at least very possible not to amplify the faults of the system, by remaining measured and sober.

And where can this hubris come from?

[ABC2019]

Sorry to keep it simple but whatever happens on the planet, it is not possible to dissipate and consume more energy than what the sun sends to us (neglecting nuclear and geothermal energy -> energy from the sun). 'primary star)

if you speak in instantaneous flow, if possible, for example by consuming fossil fuels, which are canned solar energy (like if you empty your savings book, you can temporarily live above your means, or spend more than your salary).
And of course if we mastered fusion, the production of entropy imaginable would be quite colossal.

Therefore the planet, including humans, must function within the energetic boundary of the sun.
The first peoples achieve this perfectly by being 100% renewable and not having an unbridled dermography, because of their way of life.

it's just that they have had time to reach their limit, which industrial civilization had not reached until then (but which it is obviously starting to approach seriously).

There is no longer much demographic or energy growth in the pipeline, except to find a new revolution replacing fossils (fusion type, but that remains very hypothetical for the moment).

The problem is of course that the consumption of resources is mainly on non-renewable resources, so a steady state is not possible in the current model. It's not even worth asking the question of whether this is what you want or not, it's not possible. All we can hope for is to gain some time before finding another solution.

If humans want to avoid or lessen the post-carbon collapse, they have to work on themselves, on their own behaviors.

In fact I think they don't care, especially since working on your own behavior is not useful, since you do not control the behavior of others ...

[ABC2019]

For example if you use 1 l of gasoline to operate an excavator which raises 1m ^ 3 of earth from a certain height, well this is not the maximum production of entropy: the maximum production of entropy would have been obtained by burning that liter of gasoline without doing anything with it. The "backhoe" structure used part of the energy to store it in the form of gravity energy, with low entropy (likely to give back to work later). So no, it is not a principle of maximum production - in simple (quasi-linear) systems, we can even show that it is rather a minimum production of entropy, for a given energy flow.

Your reasoning reminds me of the demon of Maxwell... basically your excavator is going down in history ex nihilo?
Didn't it take energy, materials, research etc. to produce a construction machine? How did your excavator get by the road, who built the road?
The notion of global entropy should not be confused with the more subtle notion of local negentropy.

that is not the question I was discussing. I was just telling you that the excavator which "works" creates less entropy than directly burning its fuel, so that does not obey a principle of dissipation maximale.

After that it was never mentioned that the structures were the cause of the entropy of the universe, they are a consequence based on self-organization. In short, nature is organized to "fluidify" the passage of its strengths. Why do you think we see the appearance of a cyclone?

the "why" has a teleological connotation, cyclones organize themselves spontaneously when the flow of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere becomes too great, that's all .

[humus]

There, not OK.
The system carries within it the seeds of perversion (no doubt like any system) but each individual decides to activate the perversion or not, depending on his degree of consciousness.
I recognize that it is not easy to go against the grain of the system, but it is possible to a certain extent.
It is at least very possible not to amplify the faults of the system, by remaining measured and sober.

And where can this hubris come from?

From the mind of each individual when it lacks consciousness.