Free Energy in the Food Chain
If we consider energy in a very broad sense, we recall that the first and second laws of thermodynamics state that "the total energy content in the universe is constant, and the total entropy is continually increasing."1 The idea that there is a set and finite amount of energy in the universe is something we may comprehend, but the fact that this energy continually moves to a less usable state is more difficult to understand.
Moreover, we find that the more advanced the species, the more free energy is required for its survival. Because 80-90% of stored energy is typically lost in the translation from prey to predator, the food that reaches our table comes at an exorbitant cost. Chemist G. Tyler Miller describes a sample food chain in this way: "Three hundred trout are required to support one man for a year. The trout, in turn, must consume 90,000 frogs, which must consume 27 million grasshoppers, which live off of 1,000 tons of grass."2
1Asimov, Isaac. "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even." Smithsonian. August 1970. p. 9
2Miller, G. Tyler, Jr. Energetics, Kinetics and Life. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1971. p. 46
2 Comments:
There is but one solution to the issues you present. It was widely discussed in the 60's and 70's, but has been taboo for decades. Population control.
You can grow more food, but not without washing fertilizers and pesticides into your oceans. If you reduce energy consumption 25%, but double your population, you lose ground.
Population excess breeds many of your other ills, even terrorism. One nut per 10K does relatively little damage, but in a population of millions, enough nuts find one another to create a critical mass, and aberrant organizations are born which wreak havoc and pain on the world. Even benign endeavors suffer. In the world of science, the shear number of marginal minds, coupled with the publicity seekers, and grant driven, have created an un-ignorable voice touting poorly vetted research aimed at advancing a social agenda that may seem intuitive, but does not pass empirical muster.
Einstein pointed out that common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down before the age of eighteen. Every new idea one encounters in later years must combat this accreditation of “self evident” concepts. Einstein was unwilling to accept any unproven principle as self evident, and was thus able to solve great problems.
You must, as well, shed all pre-conceived notions of what the problem is, what the solutions are, and any limitations based on what portions of possible solutions you think you may be able to affect*. Only when you start without emotion and prejudice can you accurately define the problem, and accurately defining the problem will lead you to the answer.
*Don’t be the drunk looking under the street lamp for the keys he dropped in the ally just because the light is better.
I don't think that population control persay is the only answer to the problem: Another solution that was widely discussed in the 60's and 70's is vegetarianism.
I'm not a vegetarian, but if you do the statistics for how much energy it takes to feed a human with plant matter, without several intermediate animals in between, you realize that with the vegetarian option (or simply reducing animal consumption), there'd be plenty of land mass to grow sufficient food.
Limiting people's meat intake (or the meat industry's production) would be a little less politically incorrect than limiting their kid production!!
I don't believe that large-scale enforced population control is a realistic answer, but I believe that if standards of living go up in developing countries, the birth rates will go down.
It doesn't seem likely that any time soon we will have a global political or economic situation that will actually IMPROVE average quality of life in developing countries, but hey, we can hope...
Post a Comment
<< Home