 |
 |
on 10/26/00 09:35, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote: > the cycles are imperfect even at best. In all > cases, except water I suppose, there is a loss to do inefficiency. How is > that the bases for an ethical system? Steven, That entropy penalty for all phenomena is in fact I think a very good basis. In the end, the solar-thermal input is the essential, overriding fuel/food that keeps this whole beast/earth moving and running right. Therefore, of course, _all_ the cycles, hydrologic, nutrient flows, etc., are "directed," if that's a good word, by "energy", loosely defined. When we burn our earth-bound fuels (long-long-term solar in the form of petroleum and gas deposits, medium-term photosynthetics (trees), short-term photosynthetics (crops)), too quickly and without directly using solar the to the extent we could (or in the ways we used to), we disrupt all the other cycles. Burning causes the worst entropy penalties by far, of all processes...a gasoline engine is maybe 10% efficient, "efficient" diesel engines are maybe 13% efficient. The penalties can be thought of simply (simplistically?) as pollution, and end up taking various forms, unclean water, unclean air, acid rain, soil erosion, loss of habitat, "climate change" (what a euphemism) etc. Ultimately I'm leading to this still highly unrefined idea of mine that a new criterion for moral considerability (beyond the faulty intelligence and sentience criteria), whether regarding animals, ecosystems, human communities, etc., might have the consideration of entropy at its core. An ethic stemming from this stuff may look different but I don't believe it would end up being a weaker basis. And as with all things philosophical, can be phrased in slightly different ways to radically alter the implications. For example, we could say, "We should use only as much non-solar-direct fuel as is necessary for a decent life," or we could say, "We should not use more earth bound fuel-type capital than is necessary for a decent life," the first positive, the second negative. Human-to-human, this gets at the expropriation of raw materials from poor to rich. Regarding animals, this is related to habitat loss. Regarding eco-systems, this is related to the flows between them and the cycles which can be/are being disrupted., etc. Of course, somewhere along the line, we will have to encourage the continued examination of what a "satisficing" quality of life is, and to be frank about what is "needed" and what is "luxurious" for our lifestyles. Just some more thoughts, Adam %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%