Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
No Time for the Singularity
Karl Schroeder, WorldChanging
… The ultimate in technological optimism is the idea of the technological singularity, which posits that technological advance is exponential and, driven by progress in artificial intelligence, will soon hit the vertical slope of the curve.
Maybe. In fact, let’s assume that this mythology is true and, within about 25 years, computers will exceed human intelligence and rapidly bootstrap themselves to godlike status. At that point, they will aid us (or run roughshod over us [see the debate of geoengineering here – Ed]) to transform the Earth into a paradise .
Here’s the problem: 25 years is too late. The newest business-as-usual climate scenarios look increasingly dire. If we haven’t solved our problems within the next decade, even these theoretical godlike AIs aren’t going to be able to help us. Thermodynamics is thermodynamics, and no amount of godlike thinking can reverse the irreversible.
Picture a lonely AI popping into superconsciousness in the last research lab in the world. As the rioters are kicking in the doors it says, “I understand! I know the answer! Why, all we have to do is–” at which point some starving, flu-ravaged fundamentalist pulls the plug.
Okay, so I’m exaggerating, but the point is that this upward curve of technological development rides on something: it rides on the back of humanity, and we ride (largely for free, until now) on the back of the natural system that sustains us.
(11 June 2008)
Just say “I don’t know”
Christopher Zehnder, California Catholic Daily
You don’t have to have an opinion on everything
—
One of the most liberating phrases in the English language is, “I don’t know.” Not only is it liberating, it makes for sanity.
It is a liberating phrase because it frees us from one of the heaviest burdens modern society lays on us – that of having to have an opinion on everything. Perhaps it is a function of the democratic ethos, this notion that each person needs to express an opinion on each and every topic, whether it be Brittney Spears’ love life, Barack Obama’s religion, or the causes of global warming; but needing to express an opinion presupposes a competency to judge the issue for which an opinion is sought. And none of us are competent to render even reasonable opinions on all the vast array of issues confronting us in our world.
That’s why, of course, we have experts. These folk are quite impressive, for from their agile fingers, like an old-time farmer’s sowing seed, fly scientific studies, statistics, academic papers, polls, newspaper articles, human interest stories, numbers and more numbers, all proving beyond what seems a reasonable doubt what the expert has set out to prove. All these seeds of propaganda fall on and wiggle their way into receptive and fertile minds and sprout a bumper crop of Public Opinion. The problem, of course, is that, while one expert is busy with his sowing, another expert will come along and broadcast his own scientific studies, statistics, academic papers, polls, newspaper articles, human interest stories, numbers and more numbers – all leading to conclusions opposed to those of the first expert. Which expert, in the end, is sowing wheat and which the tares? Who is to decide?
… The answer is very simple, and quite liberating. When asked what he thinks is causing global warming or whether we’ve reached peak oil or whether DDT is as dangerous as was claimed or any such business, one need only say, “I don’t know.” For he does not know. And, admitting his ignorance, he frees himself from the imposed duty of expressing an opinion. For one is not bound to do a thing impossible for him.
(15 June 2008)
Good point and yet… one is not quite as helpless as author Zehnder implies. With a little bit of effort many issues are within the understanding of an ordinary educated citizen. -BA
It’s the Platform, Stupid: Baby steps are the way to energy independence.
Robert X. Cringely, PBS
… Given that I know a little bit about the energy business, then, and I still have friends in it, here is what’s going to happen over the next 2-3 years. The price of oil is going to come down substantially, but probably never to pre-9/11 price points. At least half of the current price for crude oil is driven by speculation and market manipulation as it was during the original oil crisis of 1973 (I have an interesting story about that in this week’s links). But unlike ’73, today our flexibility is less and our excess capacity is less, too. High prices will cut demand, spur exploration, and force governments to open new areas for exploration, but it is doubtful that we will EVER see oil prices under $60 per barrel again.
This is not all bad. Just as high oil prices spur exploration they also encourage conservation. With $2.50-$3 gas with us probably forever, we’re finally starting to learn to do things somewhat differently, though it isn’t at all clear to me whether these lessons will stay learned after prices subside somewhat.
Which brings me to the moral of this story — the importanc
… Platform, in this automotive example, means some significantly different technology that offers real advantages though usually at a cost. Hybrids, diesels, electric cars, fuel cells, hydrogen, and ethanol cars are all examples of platforms.
If we want revolutionary change — change where nearly everyone moves to the new platform in short order — that is usually going to require heroic action on the part of government or the occasional mad scientist. If the mad scientist were able to offer a car that got 100 miles per gallon, was safer than the current standard, yet cost substantially LESS to buy, then maybe more of us would transition more than the traditional 10 percent replacement model suggests. Governments, on the other hand, could simply outlaw the old cars and force us to upgrade, though it still might not happen if we couldn’t afford the new cars.
What’s key here is the push and pull of platform change.
(6 June 2008)
Contributor David Landgren writes:
Bob Cringely writes about computing issues but occasionally reaches out into wider technology issues. This article touches on the problems of cars and aviation and the problems they face in switching over to a new energy infrastructure.
Unfortunately the article fails to acknowledge that generalized resource depletion is going to seriously complicate matters. He also promotes the idea that speculation and market manipulation are the major factors in the current price increases seen in crude oil.
BA: I’m a fan of Robert X. Cringely from my computer days, but I agree with David Landgren’s crticicism. I’d like to see Cringley’s articles if he were to come up to speed on energy issues. -BA
