One issue with unlimited clean energy: Energy = work = heat.
Our earth system is in an equilibrium from billions of years of a particular amount of energy input from the sun, in particular ways, converted and absorbed in varied ways to create an ecosystem not just of humans but of water, ice, plants, trees, bugs, birds, food, air, at specific temperatures, etc. This existence, is all truly magical, most people agree.
If we find a way to harness massive additional amounts of energy AND USE IT, those inputs will still heat up our planet’s closed ecosystem. If the energy was infinite, so would be the heating. Until we also then learn to jettison it our of the solar system. Consumption involves MAKING STUFF, which transforms elements that were previously created and balanced by a billion years of physics, God, etc.
More often than not, we will go forward in a non-ecologically sound way. So instead, we invent new systems to sit on top of old systems that had unintended consequences, and so on, piling up the stack of man-made systems-on-top-of-systems. For example, inventing robotic bees because our current innovations are killing the real ones. Hey, we can do that with new forms of energy. In a myopic sense only, we might conclude, who needs bees.
But we are not able to handle and account for the number of variables and impacts of what we do, on a trillion-trillion other things. This is the ill-fated power of harnessing energy, and more and more of it. Anyone can begin to see this approach could easily be a house of cards in the making.
There is also timing. It is possible if we run ahead of ourselves a little bit, it is would be valid and rational for people to think about backing off on having kids. That is natural, and I think the premise of this article may be wrong a bit. When signals later present themselves with new opportunities, kids will start popping out again.
We all want more energy. But the true question and need for innovation is Sustainability. THIS is the magical concept. We already understand innovation. Anyone can try building new things with more energy available. And we have been for eons. Nothing new or interesting here.
Meanwhile, the importance of timing and sustainability of our actions and consumption is not well understood, yet crucial. We need to understand this regardless of any amount of innovation in energy.
I’d love to see more brain power put towards defining what sustainability really means. One of the smartest comments I ever once heard on this discussion, is that Sustainability can only be God. We are wading into global, planetary, natural scales, unable to incorporate the trillions of variables and the so so many elements of our existence we can’t even see. Have you ever lived in the ocean? In a heap of dirt? Who decides who lives and dies in the ecosystem, for… what? To squeeze in the next additional 1 billion people? What are the unintended consequences? When does a choice cause us to fly off the rails?
To walk on a sustainable pathway is a problem with solution no human can yet define. Recognizing limitations within our ecosystem and the need to share it, goes against our natural instincts as humans who were particularly brought up in the 21st century in a capitalistic high-tech world. Where we whizz by important natural things unawares, while looking only at screens of our devising. We as kids are so far up in the technology stack, and so far removed from the root.
In the future, if AI lives up to its promise, the best thing AI can do is incorporate more variables, focus on sustainability, and, we may find out that AI decides on a doomsday scenario for us humans - that too many people are doing too many things in the wrong way to survive. The AI will figure that out and project accordingly. God.
If we could get more thoughtful articles written by everyone in tech, in money, in energy, about the realities of sustainability (at any level of energy, any level of technology), then we would be making progress on a much more important topic for all readers and consumers to begin incorporating into their thinking.
We need to think about life and what it means. That free consumption of everything around us doesn’t really work, even if it is clean energy driven. As a society we might be apt to develop a new religion, one that works with finite time-bound resources even if they are renewable.
Right now it just sounds like “pedal to the metal” and “then and only then, it will work out.” Is that really intelligence?
I believe that there is typically a strong correlation between the amount of discussion in regard to something’s limitations and the amount of discussion/investment in possible solutions to those limitations. With that said, I don’t think that this scenario strengthens the simulation argument as it appears to just be the most discussed limitation that humankind has at this moment in history.
It was interesting to read about the impact that fossil fuels had on slavery as that is not something I think I have ever considered too much!
Absolutely brilliant, I only hope it gets in front of what I would call climate change sceptics, why would you not want to level up to this next phase anyway... I hadn't thought of bringing it back to the fact that energy will run out if we don't transition... very well written and so entertaining!
So my insatiable need to consume more and more energy is actually a good thing because it creates the incentives to find new energy sources all of which will help solve climate change issues. Therefore my unblinking march forward is the solution to the climate crisis. I knew I could do it!
Apply the same logic to a man playing Russian Roulette. If you’ve always passed the trial of pulling the trigger and finding an empty chamber rather than a loaded one, you should repeat. If our ancestors hadn’t passed the trial you’d not be here to discuss.
One point about the closed energy system argument - the heat from nuclear fission would emit to the world whether the uranium is enriched and placed in a nuclear plant or left in the ground. The kinetic energy of the wind would still create heat on the ground or ocean. The solar radiation would still hit the earth, though maybe a little more would reflect. Maybe fusion or orbiting solar stations would add to the system more than a trivial amount. So long of course as fossil fuels were not used to mine the materials or make the concrete and steel needed for all of these.
Dec 6, 2023·edited Dec 6, 2023Liked by Packy McCormick
Great stuff, my friend. The Industrial Revolution was a hell of a thing. I'd compliment the fantastic and almost immeasurable progress we've made to alleviate extreme poverty and childhood mortality with the 6-8 million people a year killed via the many sources of fossil fuel-driven indoor and outdoor air pollution (https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths), and many, many more who suffer cardiovascular diseases (and are susceptible to respiratory viruses) because of them.
However much this is going to be a longer transition than we need it to be, and a rough one either way, those trillions in subsidies continue to (quite literally) fuel incredible progress at the same time as they're doing immense damage. I admire how comprehensively you consider the fullest picture of a company or problem. I'd urge you to include the full costs of our choices.
Similarly, I'd note that as much progress as we've made to scale solar and batteries (and some wind) -- solar being in most places the cheapest electricity of all time -- there will be some climate change repercussions we can slow -- like heating -- and others we simply can't put back in the box, that will underpin a massively different world for our kids. Specifically, sea level rise. Cities, coastlines, and huge amounts of infrastructure are at risk.
Controlling what we can control is the name of the game. All we can do is all we can do. It's why Emily Johnson said "Our job is not to feel hope—that’s optional. Our job is to *be* hope, and to make space for the chance of a different future."
Wonderful read and a great way to start the day. Another thing that gives me an uneasy feeling that we could be in a simulation is the development of mRNA vaccines and its availability. The timely overlap of technology maturity was just in time for the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine what would have happened if they were available just a year later. Perhaps a topic for a future article?
Ok. That was one of the most brilliant things I have read. Anywhere. Ever.
"Humanity is about as ethical as it can afford to be" is a brilliant insight, not just on energy but for a lot of other issues, as well.
One issue with unlimited clean energy: Energy = work = heat.
Our earth system is in an equilibrium from billions of years of a particular amount of energy input from the sun, in particular ways, converted and absorbed in varied ways to create an ecosystem not just of humans but of water, ice, plants, trees, bugs, birds, food, air, at specific temperatures, etc. This existence, is all truly magical, most people agree.
If we find a way to harness massive additional amounts of energy AND USE IT, those inputs will still heat up our planet’s closed ecosystem. If the energy was infinite, so would be the heating. Until we also then learn to jettison it our of the solar system. Consumption involves MAKING STUFF, which transforms elements that were previously created and balanced by a billion years of physics, God, etc.
More often than not, we will go forward in a non-ecologically sound way. So instead, we invent new systems to sit on top of old systems that had unintended consequences, and so on, piling up the stack of man-made systems-on-top-of-systems. For example, inventing robotic bees because our current innovations are killing the real ones. Hey, we can do that with new forms of energy. In a myopic sense only, we might conclude, who needs bees.
But we are not able to handle and account for the number of variables and impacts of what we do, on a trillion-trillion other things. This is the ill-fated power of harnessing energy, and more and more of it. Anyone can begin to see this approach could easily be a house of cards in the making.
There is also timing. It is possible if we run ahead of ourselves a little bit, it is would be valid and rational for people to think about backing off on having kids. That is natural, and I think the premise of this article may be wrong a bit. When signals later present themselves with new opportunities, kids will start popping out again.
We all want more energy. But the true question and need for innovation is Sustainability. THIS is the magical concept. We already understand innovation. Anyone can try building new things with more energy available. And we have been for eons. Nothing new or interesting here.
Meanwhile, the importance of timing and sustainability of our actions and consumption is not well understood, yet crucial. We need to understand this regardless of any amount of innovation in energy.
I’d love to see more brain power put towards defining what sustainability really means. One of the smartest comments I ever once heard on this discussion, is that Sustainability can only be God. We are wading into global, planetary, natural scales, unable to incorporate the trillions of variables and the so so many elements of our existence we can’t even see. Have you ever lived in the ocean? In a heap of dirt? Who decides who lives and dies in the ecosystem, for… what? To squeeze in the next additional 1 billion people? What are the unintended consequences? When does a choice cause us to fly off the rails?
To walk on a sustainable pathway is a problem with solution no human can yet define. Recognizing limitations within our ecosystem and the need to share it, goes against our natural instincts as humans who were particularly brought up in the 21st century in a capitalistic high-tech world. Where we whizz by important natural things unawares, while looking only at screens of our devising. We as kids are so far up in the technology stack, and so far removed from the root.
In the future, if AI lives up to its promise, the best thing AI can do is incorporate more variables, focus on sustainability, and, we may find out that AI decides on a doomsday scenario for us humans - that too many people are doing too many things in the wrong way to survive. The AI will figure that out and project accordingly. God.
If we could get more thoughtful articles written by everyone in tech, in money, in energy, about the realities of sustainability (at any level of energy, any level of technology), then we would be making progress on a much more important topic for all readers and consumers to begin incorporating into their thinking.
We need to think about life and what it means. That free consumption of everything around us doesn’t really work, even if it is clean energy driven. As a society we might be apt to develop a new religion, one that works with finite time-bound resources even if they are renewable.
Right now it just sounds like “pedal to the metal” and “then and only then, it will work out.” Is that really intelligence?
Yours thoughtfully,
-Joe
A reference to Civ in not boring. Awesome.
Or proof that video game makers understood this long before. In any case, makes sense to me!
Best piece this year, Packy! I love it when you get quirky and not boring.
Uber-abundant energy will eliminate physical work as we know it.
Not everyone will enjoy a life without physical labor.
Not all of those who can enjoy non-physical labor will be able to find meaningful challenges.
The next level in this game starts with a crisis of meaning that may not promote ethical behavior.
I believe that there is typically a strong correlation between the amount of discussion in regard to something’s limitations and the amount of discussion/investment in possible solutions to those limitations. With that said, I don’t think that this scenario strengthens the simulation argument as it appears to just be the most discussed limitation that humankind has at this moment in history.
It was interesting to read about the impact that fossil fuels had on slavery as that is not something I think I have ever considered too much!
Absolutely brilliant, I only hope it gets in front of what I would call climate change sceptics, why would you not want to level up to this next phase anyway... I hadn't thought of bringing it back to the fact that energy will run out if we don't transition... very well written and so entertaining!
I think I might be... in love?
This was so epic. Thanks Packy.
www.adamtank.com
So my insatiable need to consume more and more energy is actually a good thing because it creates the incentives to find new energy sources all of which will help solve climate change issues. Therefore my unblinking march forward is the solution to the climate crisis. I knew I could do it!
Apply the same logic to a man playing Russian Roulette. If you’ve always passed the trial of pulling the trigger and finding an empty chamber rather than a loaded one, you should repeat. If our ancestors hadn’t passed the trial you’d not be here to discuss.
One point about the closed energy system argument - the heat from nuclear fission would emit to the world whether the uranium is enriched and placed in a nuclear plant or left in the ground. The kinetic energy of the wind would still create heat on the ground or ocean. The solar radiation would still hit the earth, though maybe a little more would reflect. Maybe fusion or orbiting solar stations would add to the system more than a trivial amount. So long of course as fossil fuels were not used to mine the materials or make the concrete and steel needed for all of these.
Exhilarating. Thanks.
Great stuff, my friend. The Industrial Revolution was a hell of a thing. I'd compliment the fantastic and almost immeasurable progress we've made to alleviate extreme poverty and childhood mortality with the 6-8 million people a year killed via the many sources of fossil fuel-driven indoor and outdoor air pollution (https://ourworldindata.org/data-review-air-pollution-deaths), and many, many more who suffer cardiovascular diseases (and are susceptible to respiratory viruses) because of them.
However much this is going to be a longer transition than we need it to be, and a rough one either way, those trillions in subsidies continue to (quite literally) fuel incredible progress at the same time as they're doing immense damage. I admire how comprehensively you consider the fullest picture of a company or problem. I'd urge you to include the full costs of our choices.
Similarly, I'd note that as much progress as we've made to scale solar and batteries (and some wind) -- solar being in most places the cheapest electricity of all time -- there will be some climate change repercussions we can slow -- like heating -- and others we simply can't put back in the box, that will underpin a massively different world for our kids. Specifically, sea level rise. Cities, coastlines, and huge amounts of infrastructure are at risk.
Controlling what we can control is the name of the game. All we can do is all we can do. It's why Emily Johnson said "Our job is not to feel hope—that’s optional. Our job is to *be* hope, and to make space for the chance of a different future."
Let's go.
Wonderful read and a great way to start the day. Another thing that gives me an uneasy feeling that we could be in a simulation is the development of mRNA vaccines and its availability. The timely overlap of technology maturity was just in time for the COVID-19 pandemic. Imagine what would have happened if they were available just a year later. Perhaps a topic for a future article?
I can feel my brain getting bigger